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 January 1, 2009, the Plaintiff asserted that, while entering the freedom of a dispute resolution and taking charge of the steel plate processing business, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant, the Plaintiff claimed that, on December 14, 2015, the Plaintiff caused a serious pain by spreading it by plastic inserting in order to eliminate the degree of two ton of steel scrap (hereinafter “the instant disaster”), while conducting the floor cleaning work at the workplace on December 14, 2015.

B. On May 23, 2016, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that was not approved on the ground that “the proximate causal relation with the business is not recognized.”

C. Although the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination, the Plaintiff was dismissed on September 1, 2016.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion over a long-term period of time has been engaged in the business that imposes a burden on the portion of the Plaintiff’s opinion, and there was a pain on December 14, 2015 during the work, there is a proximate causal relation between the business branches of the instant case.

B. (1) In order to constitute the “occupational accident” subject to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the causal relationship between the business and the disaster is recognized. However, even if the accident is an existing disease not directly related to the business, if it becomes worse or its symptoms are revealed due to the accident that occurred in connection with the business, it shall be deemed that there exists a causal relationship between the business and the business. Such causal relationship must be proved by the party asserting it.

(2) In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff submitted the instant case in light of the respective entries in the evidence of subparagraphs B through 12 and the purport of the entire pleadings, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du2561, Feb. 9, 2012).