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 December 11, 2012, the Plaintiff joined “C” as a subordinate company of “C,” and served as an official physician at the 1 factory of Changwon-gu, Changwon-gu, Changwon-si.

B. On March 11, 2013, at around 16:40, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “self-exploital cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral Spouss” (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”) at the pertinent hospital, and sent back to the F Hospital via E Hospital, while working in the Do.

C. On May 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care for the instant injury and disease with the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care on July 18, 2013 on the ground that there was no proximate causal relation with the instant injury and disease with the Defendant’s business.

2) Each of the entries in Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 4-1, and Eul evidence No. 4-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff had suffered a large physical burden and mental stress due to the work environment that requires frequent overtime work, because the characteristics of the work are required to be accurate in light of the characteristics of the work while serving as an engineer in C. The plaintiff suffered a large amount of physical burden and mental stress. On the date of the occurrence, the plaintiff's first work was conducted due to erroneous relation between the contact between the product and the products, which was conducted in the first work, from G representative of B, the original company, and the defendant's H head of C aggravated the disease of this case or beyond the natural progress due to extreme stress that occurred in the situation where the foreign workers working together with the plaintiff, who were at the same time, are able to take serious bath and quality measures. Thus, the prior disposition of this case on different premise is unlawful.

B. In order to be recognized as an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, there should be a proximate causal relationship between the work and the accident, as well as the work performance, in order to be recognized as an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and in this case, the causal relationship between the work