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 November 7, 2011, while working in Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.”), the Plaintiff diagnosed two races “the instant injury and disease” (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”), and applied for the first medical care benefit to the Defendant on February 4, 2015.

B. However, on October 27, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to grant medical care non-approval (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff according to the Seoul Occupational Disease Determination Committee that “the proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s business branch of the instant case and the Plaintiff is not recognized” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review and reexamination, but all of which were dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was continuously exposed to harmful substances, such as heavy metals, such as me, fume, nitrogen oxides, various organic solvents, harmful light, noise, high heat, radiation (x-ray non-destructive inspection) while performing the duties of contact and pipeing in the non-party company, etc. for about 27 years, and caused the disease of this case to occur. However, the disposition of this case on different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) The occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act refers to a disease caused by the worker’s occupational accident during his/her work. Thus, 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 clearly in medical and natural science, a proximate causal relationship between the occupational and the disease should be inferred, considering all circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7725, Feb. 5, 2002) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7725, Feb. 5, 2002).