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 June 25, 2012, the Plaintiff, who worked in Company B (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), held a meeting on the investment project plan of the “C” (hereinafter “C program”), which is a mobile search program from A.M. to P.M., and was sent back to Samsung Seoul Hospital because the horse was divided into 18:30 meals, and the horse was sent back to M. M. M., and was diagnosed as “the instant injury and disease” (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”).

B. On February 1, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant, and on May 16, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval for medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) according to the results of deliberation by the Occupational Disease Determination Committee, that “it is difficult to deem that there is overwork or stress to the extent that the injury or disease in the instant case is likely to be caused, or that there is a sudden change in business environment.”

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul Nos. 1, 2, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff appeared to work from February 2012, 2012, which was the previous business start-up of the non-party company, and due to the excessive work and the late-end home work, the Plaintiff directed to the chronic department.

In particular, in June 2012, the Plaintiff was in charge of the preparation of the program project plan and the relevant work related to the investment presentation since April 2012. The said presentation was a venture business, and the Plaintiff’s business intensity and stress was extremely serious.

Despite the fact that the Plaintiff’s injury or disease was caused by occupational negligence and stress, the disposition of this case which did not recognize a proximate causal relation with the work of the injury or disease of this case is unlawful.

B. (1) The fact of recognition is that the non-party company is a venture business established on April 10, 2012, with a total of four employees employed, and the plaintiff was employed as a planning director in February 2012, which was prepared to start a business, and planned goods and marketing.