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 January 1, 2013, the Plaintiff has been engaged in driving service for the Plaintiff to become a member in B.

B. After leaving the bus stops around 06:50 on April 18, 2013, the Plaintiff was faced with 16 tons of water and was waiting for a transit bus at the bus stops in the workplace (hereinafter “instant accident”). On May 15, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for medical care benefits by asserting that the Defendant suffered injury to “the water and water fluoral fluor, the water fluoral base, the water fluoral base, the water fluoral base, the water fluoral fluoral base, the water fluoral fluoral base, the water fluoral fluoral base, the water fluoral fluoral base, the water fluoral fluoral 4-5, the water fluoral fluoral 4-5, the water fluoral fluoral base, and the fluoral f

C. On June 26, 2013, the Defendant: (a) recognized the Plaintiff’s medical care for occupational disease only with respect to the lux salt base, the luxum base, the lux salt base, the luxum base, and the luxum salt base; and (b) issued a disposition of non-approval for medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation with the instant accident with respect to “The luxum 4-5, the luxum signboard No. 5-3, the luxal base No. 1, the luxalistist 4-5, the luxe Book No. 5-3, the luxal Year No. 1, the luxum 1, and the luxum 1, etc.”

On the other hand, it was required to apply for additional injury and disease after a close examination with respect to the water table table for the water table of the river table.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion did not have any pains or received medical treatment on the part of Heluri before he was faced with the accident of this case. The plaintiff suffered the injury of this case due to the accident of this case, which constitutes an occupational accident, and thus, the disposition of this case contrary to this should be revoked illegally.

B. The Plaintiff’s work period and form are as follows: (a) on January 7, 2008, the Plaintiff joined the Ulsan Moscisco Cooperation Company C.