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 May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for medical care benefits for the following reasons: (a) the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant on May 28, 2015, stating that “Grash salt, detailed light obstruction signboards (hereinafter referred to as “the instant injury disease”) with respect to which he/she applied for the provision of medical care benefits: (a) the Plaintiff: (b) he/she: (c) he/she: (d) he/she: (e) he/she: (e) he/she: (e) he/she loaded a container Belgium on the container box consisting of the cargo loaded in the container box; (e) on November 6, 2012; (e) he/she: (e) he/she stored a acute fluort in the container box consisting of cargo

B. On September 24, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical treatment to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The light signboard disability of the standing missing person is not clearly identified from the MIM image, and it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with the business as it is determined that the body part of the part above the part above the part above the part above the part above the part above the door line in the course of the work on the selective distribution of the goods is low in terms of the content of the work, and the light base is related to the credit, and it is difficult to recognize it as an occupational disease because there is no clear disaster circumstance,” and thus, it is difficult to recognize it as an occupational disease.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff carried out 12 hours the regular work of the quantity of 3 containers of which load capacity is 15 tons, and the original regular work is carried out as 2 man 1. However, the plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff carried out the work together with the plaintiff and carried out the work together with the plaintiff for the last four hours at the wind.

Because of the mixed work, it is difficult to work at the speed of the consortium, and thus, it is difficult to normally store door-to-door products and then he gets a sloped articles for several hours.