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 August 1, 2006, the Plaintiff was employed as a limited partnership company and worked as a taxi driver. On March 1, 2014, around 23:15, the Plaintiff applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant on May 30, 2014, after receiving a diagnosis of brain flacing, light-flacing, and brain flacing (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”). On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) while operating a taxi in front of the crosswalk 56-8, Dong-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon; (b) caused an accident of collision between the vehicle and the opposite line; and (c) filed an emergency transport report with the Defendant on May 30, 2014.

B. On July 18, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant injury and disease is not recognized as an occupational disease according to the fact-finding investigation and the judgment of the Daejeon Occupational Disease Determination Committee.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff operated a taxi 12 hours a week alternately during seven years and seven months, and the working hours have reached 72 hours a week. The plaintiff's assertion is due to irregular meals and rest hours, long-time work, home-to-day work, lack of water surface due to night work, burden on taxi commission, characteristics of taxi driving, noise exposure, paralysis with passengers, and rate trial costs, etc., and the injury and stress of this case caused by occupational negligence and stress.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition made by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful.

B. (1) Details and working hours of the Plaintiff’s work are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff worked for five days a day and worked for five hours a day; and (b) the Plaintiff worked for a shifts in the morning and after a day; and (c) the time of assignment under the labor contract shall be freely utilized.