1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 14, 2015, while the Plaintiff joined the “B” frequency hall (hereinafter the instant place of business) as the head of the team and performed the duties of ice ice ice on March 13, 2015, the Plaintiff received an operation with “the 5-6 conical signboard escape certificate and the stimulary neutism (hereinafter the instant injury and disease),” and filed an application for medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act with the Defendant.

B. On November 24, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition not to approve the above application on the ground that there was a change in the equitable nature to the Plaintiff, that there was no higher occupational burden on the Plaintiff, and that there was no proximate causal relation between the instant higher occupational branch and the instant higher occupational period. (hereinafter the instant disposition)

C. The Plaintiff filed a petition for review against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on February 26, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 8, Eul 5, 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he had been engaged in ice ice ice business even in another place of business prior to the work at the instant place of business, and that the instant place of business was also engaged in the business of maintaining significant or inappropriate attitude.

Therefore, inasmuch as the injury and disease of this case occurred due to the Plaintiff’s work or becomes worse than the natural progress, the disposition of this case denying proximate causal relation between the injury and disease of this case is unlawful.

B. Fact-finding 1) The Plaintiff’s work details consisting of five male employees and four female employees in the instant workplace, and the Plaintiff served as the head of the ice ice team in the instant workplace from March 13, 2015 to July 27, 2015. The Plaintiff worked for six days per week, and the daily work hours are about ten hours per day. The number of the instant workplace is 24, and the number of customers per day is about 85 to 90. The Plaintiff’s work performed by the Plaintiff is 24, and the number of customers per day is about 85 to 90. The Plaintiff’s work performed by guiding customers on the left place and transporting food (the weight at the time of the meeting is about 5 to 6 km) using car sets.