The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 8, 2011, while entering the instant place of business on September 2, 2011 (hereinafter “instant place of business”), the Plaintiff was faced with the beam beam and was hospitalized in the hospital upon the diagnosis of the injury of the “shot signboard escape certificate No. 2-3 during the instant period of work on December 8, 2011 (hereinafter “instant accident”), and was hospitalized in the hospital until December 31, 2013.

B. On March 13, 2012, the Plaintiff, who was receiving medical care due to the above injury and disease, filed an application for additional injury and disease approval to the Defendant for the escape certificate of cirical signboards No. 4-5-6-7, 201, but the Defendant was not granted approval on April 13, 2012 after deliberation by the advisory society.

C. On October 23, 2012, the Plaintiff again filed an application with the Defendant for medical care benefits for the escape certificate of a memorial signboard between No. 5-6 and No. 6-7 (hereinafter “instant injury”). However, the Defendant, following deliberation by the Committee for Determination of Occupational Diseases, acknowledged the instant injury on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s work.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff, dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for reexamination to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but was dismissed on March 15, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, 9, 21, 24, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was involved in the accident of this case during his work, and the plaintiff was able to take care of or see the status of trees in a narrow space at several places of business for more than 13 years, and had been employed for long time.

Therefore, the injury of this case constitutes an occupational accident that occurred due to the accident of this case or the plaintiff's duties, or which has been aggravated due to the deterioration of the natural progress at least.

Therefore, the instant disposition that did not recognize the proximate causal relation between the instant accident or the Plaintiff’s business and the instant injury and disease.