1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 13, 2012, the Plaintiff, as an employee of the Jindong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”), was involved in an accident that 20 meters pipeed into the shoulder door and went off from the front stairs of the front door (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”).

B. The Plaintiff asserted that he/she suffered damage to the upper part of the relevant disaster (hereinafter “the instant injury”) and filed a medical care application with the Defendant. However, on July 15, 2015, the Defendant already rendered a disposition of non-approval on the ground that the instant injury was caused by the psychotropic damage that was already issued by the police station’s rejection of medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant injury was caused by an acute external injury, not by a earculation, and thus, cannot be deemed to have caused the instant injury on September 11, 2013 by the earculation identical to the learc that was issued by the Defendant on which the medical care non-approval was issued on September 11, 2013. In the earculation test conducted by the Korea University Hospital (hereinafter “Seoul University Hospital”), although the opinion of the earcosis was presented, the Defendant committed the instant disposition without recognizing the causal relationship with the instant accident on the ground that the instant injury was caused by the earcosis damage caused by the earculation.

B. Determination 1 of Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to an occupational accident caused by an employee’s negligence during the performance of his/her duties, and there is a proximate causal relation between the occupational and disease.

This causal relationship between work and disease of workers is proved by the assertion, but it is essential.