1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On July 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on July 26, 2015, on the following grounds: (a) while carrying out the work of unloading materials at a construction site of approximately one to two meters high from the Defendant, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits: (b) the Plaintiff’s act of pricing the Plaintiff’s head away from materials of approximately six-10km (hereinafter “instant accident”); and (c) the Plaintiff’s head was “the instant accident” (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

On October 15, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the said application on the ground that the causal relationship between the Plaintiff and the instant injury and disease is not recognized.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, A’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant injury and disease occurred due to the instant accident or rapidly aggravated the existing disease beyond natural progress, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. The term “occupational accident” under Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to the injury, disease, physical disability, or death of an employee who was caused by his/her duties during the performance of his/her duties. As such, there should be causation between the duties and the occurrence of the accident, and the causal relationship must be attested by the party

Only evidence Nos. 1 and 3-9 (including virtual numbers) is insufficient to recognize that the instant injury or disease was caused by the instant accident, or that the existing disease was aggravated beyond the natural progress, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, considering the overall purport of the arguments as a result of the request for the examination of medical records against Eul evidence Nos. 1-4, and this Court Eul Hospital, the Plaintiff was found to have no opinion that there was no neologically abnormal opinion as a result of the examination of brain images immediately after the instant accident, and there was no opinion that there was no meologically abnormal opinion. ② The Plaintiff’s bicycle racing business headquarters as of August 28, 2013, when the Plaintiff was on the date of the occurrence.