1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as an employee of the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), was discovered on November 16, 201 at home without awareness and was sent to that university hospital by the Safety Center at around 119 Safety Center.

B. On December 30, 201, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “cerebrovascular blood (in the left part) and cerebrovascular blood (hereinafter “the instant injury”) and applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant on December 30, 201. On February 21, 2012, the Defendant rejected the said application on the ground that proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s overwork and stress is not recognized as to the instant injury branch due to insufficient grounds.

C. The Plaintiff again filed an application for medical care benefits with the same content on November 5, 2013. On November 12, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the application (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and the ground for appeal

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had frequently frighted to air, and directed to the road. In particular, on November 6, 201 and on November 13, 201, at the time of the occurrence of the instant injury, the Plaintiff worked at Sundays. On November 15, 2011, the day before the instant injury and disease occurred, a part of the inventory quantity of the goods did not match with the business owner’s stock quantity, and was frightly returned to extreme interest after having been placed at the night.

Therefore, the instant injury or disease occurred due to the Plaintiff’s overwork or stress, and the instant disposition taken on a different premise should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the relevant statutes is as stated in the attached Form of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the

C. Fact 1) The plaintiff's duty to be in charge of the plaintiff's business is part of the automobile on June 1, 200.