2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

A. On January 22, 2011, the Plaintiff obtained medical care approval from Defendant 1, 205, after receiving medical care approval from Defendant 2, 2, 4, 5, 5, 7, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the catus catus catum, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 12, 2, 4, 7, 8, and 12, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1,00-1, 200, 3,000 from occupational accidents, 4,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000).

B. On March 26, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant, and the Defendant, on March 31, 2015, notified the Plaintiff of the supplement of “the disability diagnosis certificate, disability-related medical records, and video materials” by April 3, 2015, and notified the Plaintiff of the supplement of the said documents by April 8, 2015.

C. As the Plaintiff did not comply with the above request for supplementation, on April 9, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to return the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefit (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 6, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not grant the period required for supplementation under Article 13(1) of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act (hereinafter “Civil Petitions Treatment Act”) and Article 14(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act when demanding the Plaintiff to supplement two times prior to the instant disposition. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful as it violates the procedures prescribed in the Civil Petitions Treatment Act and is in violation of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act.

B. (1) Without making any determination on the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits, Articles 9(1) and 13(1) of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, and Article 14(1), (3), and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are legitimate.