1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From June 1, 2005, the Plaintiff was a worker in charge of machinery’s official business, etc. from B. On July 9, 2018, the Plaintiff complained of two copies of the business, and was diagnosed as “the instant injury and disease” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant injury and disease”). Around July 1, 2018, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as having lost consciousness and transmitted to a hospital after having lost consciousness.

B. On July 31, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with respect to the instant injury and disease, but the Defendant, on November 30, 2018, approved the application by the Defendant on the grounds that the pertinent injury and disease and the Plaintiff’s duties are not recognized as considerable relation to the Plaintiff’s duties (hereinafter “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1, 1, and 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the injury and disease in this case occurred due to the high strength of work and overwork, and stress arising from the problems arising from unheated and heated work environment and machinery supplied to Chinese customers.

Therefore, the disposition of this case, which was made on a different premise, is unlawful, with considerable relation to the plaintiff's business between the branch of this case and the plaintiff's business.

B. (1) Determination of the occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to the occupational accident, injury, etc. of a worker. Thus, there must be considerable causal relationship between the occupational accident and the disease, etc. In this case, regarding the causal relationship between the employee’s work and the disease, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du5994, May 10, 2007, etc.). (2) In light of such legal principles, we examine whether the occupational accident between the Plaintiff’s work and the injury of this case is a considerable causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s injury and the injury of this case.

Each of the above evidence and evidence in Eul's evidence Nos. 2 through 7 and the result of the request to the head of the Busan University Hospital in this court is recognized.