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 March 26, 2008, the Plaintiff joined C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant business establishment”) located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant business establishment”) and was engaged in the maintenance, repair, and support of the hot-water distribution of metal scrap as a light in D, and caused the Plaintiff to feel pains on the part of Huri-ri, while moving a waste-free scrap along with Dong rent around September 16, 2016.

B. After that, the Plaintiff was diagnosed of the “Pest 4-5” (hereinafter “Pest 4-5”) and filed an application for medical care benefits for the instant injury and disease with respect to the Defendant, asserting that the instant injury and disease occurred as a result of repeated physical burden on the instant workplace, as a result of performing the work at the instant workplace.

C. However, on December 4, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the Plaintiff’s application for medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the basis of the result of the judgment by the Defendant Daegu Occupational Disease Determination Committee, which stated, “It is difficult to deem that the instant injury or disease was caused or aggravated due to the circumstance of the Plaintiff’s assertion,” which read, “The instant injury or disease was confirmed, but has already been diversified, and the cause of the accident alleged by the Plaintiff.”

After that, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed a petition for reexamination, but the petition for reexamination was dismissed on May 29, 2018.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion did not have the details of the disease related to the instant wound before receiving the diagnosis of the instant injury, and as a result, the instant injury and disease occurred as a result of performing repeated physical burden while working at the instant workplace, and thus, proximate causation is acknowledged between the outbreak of the instant injury and the Plaintiff’s duties.

Therefore, this is different.