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 December 1, 2012, the Plaintiff had been employed as a foundation for processing the original body to a medical manufacturing company for industrial use (hereinafter “foreign medical manufacturing company”) under the trade name “B” (hereinafter “foreign medical manufacturing company”).

B. On February 3, 2015, the Plaintiff was under the diagnosis of “vertebrate flive and hydronuclear escape certificate No. 4-5 (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”), and filed an initial medical care benefit application with the Defendant on June 15, 2015, when the Plaintiff had engaged in the work of setting up a large quantity of source due to the increase in production volume.

C. On August 18, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition not to grant medical care benefit approval (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on August 18, 2015 on the ground that “It is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff on the ground that “The applicant’s disease is confirmed as to video data, such as MRI, and the performance of duties is verified in the development of camping products and the establishment of the foundation’s duties, but the overall cumulative physical burden on the part of Heluri was judged as not high since the period of service engaged in the Helri work is short.”

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1 and 2's statements, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he/she worked as a foundation for the period from December 1, 2012 to 25 months, when he/she joined the non-party company, and the content of his/her work is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff puts the original group of 40 to 50km above the work unit at a height of 70 to 80cm into the floor by maluting it into the bottom; and (b) the Plaintiff forms the original group by seeking a considerable amount of scam from the bottom; (c) on February 3, 2015, he/she did not receive any treatment until he/she visits the hospital by scamblying pain during his/her work; and (d) the Plaintiff’s main doctor also presented his/her opinion that the injury and disease in this case may have some relation to the Plaintiff’s repetitive work. In light of the circumstances, even if there is a proximate causal relation with the Defendant’s work, the Plaintiff’s injury and disease in this case is a different.