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 October 17, 201 to November 30, 2013, the Plaintiff served as a nurse in the operating room at a hospital located in Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si, as the nurse in the operating room.

B. On October 19, 2013, at around 11:00 a.m., the Plaintiff received the diagnosis of the escape certificate of the 1-2th Tropical protruding signboard (hereinafter “the instant accident”) by suffering from an accident where the steel text of the operation room is closed while the operation room is in motion and the knife k, etc. (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and applied for the first medical care benefit to the Defendant on April 14, 2016.

C. Accordingly, on May 13, 2016, the Defendant issued a medical care non-approval disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s injury and disease was confirmed through the Plaintiff’s opinion of advisory opinion, but the proximate causal relation with the instant accident is not recognized due to the sking.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1, Eul 1, and 2 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was diagnosed with the credit name code "S3.0" as well as the credit name code of "S3.0" due to the disaster of this case at the time of the plaintiff, but the defendant's disposition of this case should be revoked as unlawful.

B. Determination 1) Since an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to a disease caused by an employee’s occupational accident while performing his/her duties, there must be a causal relationship between the occupational and the disease. The causal relationship must be proved by the party asserting it, and even if it is not necessarily necessary to prove it clearly in medical and natural science, a proximate causal relationship between the occupational and the disease should be inferred in accordance with the above legal principles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7725, Feb. 5, 2002).2)