1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was employed and worked for B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) on March 13, 1984, and thereafter retired from the hospital on November 1, 2016, “the instant injury and disease” (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”), limited to only the period between 5-6 and 6-7, and 4-5, namely, “the number of plane escape certificates of a protruding signboard, No. 5-6, and No. 4-5,” and “the number of protruding escape certificates of a protruding signboard” at the hospital.

(B) After receiving diagnosis, the Defendant filed a claim for medical care benefits with the Defendant. B. Based on the result of deliberation by the Busan Occupational Disease Determination Committee, the Defendant denied the instant injury and disease on December 18, 2017 on the ground that proximate causal relation with the work is not recognized, and on the remaining injury and disease, the decision to approve the remaining injury and disease on the ground that proximate causal relation with the work is recognized (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C) The Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Defendant, but received a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s petition for review from the Defendant. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute with the Defendant, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (which include the serial number, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In full view of the Plaintiff’s assertion period of service, the content and degree of work performed during the period of service, and the state of spine injury that led to gradually aggravation after the first outbreak of work during the period of service, etc., the instant injury was caused as a job or aggravated beyond the natural progress speed, and thus, a proximate causal relation between the instant injury branch and the instant injury branch is recognized, the Defendant’s disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Basic facts 1) On March 13, 1984, the Plaintiff entered the technical post in B on March 13, 1984, and carried out steel-frameing and cutting operations until 1998, and thereafter, occupational categories are jobed.