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

A. On July 14, 2014, the Plaintiff, as a corporate taxi driver of B Co., Ltd., operated a taxi on July 14, 2014, operated the taxi and applied for an additional examination of Defendant 2’s injury to the left side, the left side of the 1st century (No. 1, No. 3-9), including four or more cage cage cages, the left side of the fage 1st century, and the fage 1st century, and the fage cage cages, the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the 2nd body of Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant accident”), and applied for the additional examination of Defendant 1’s disease (No. 6th body of Defendant 2, No. 5th body of this case’s disease) from the fage fry, the left side part of the pelter, the upper part of the upper part of the 2nd body of the Plaintiff.

B. On September 11, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “it is difficult to confirm the direct medical causal relationship between the instant additional injury and disease caused by the instant accident that occurred on July 14, 2014,” on the ground that the Defendant presented the instant additional injury and disease to the advisory society based on disaster circumstance and medical record, etc.

C. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a request for examination with the defendant, but the defendant examined relevant data, such as the plaintiff's disaster circumstance, waters injury, and medical records, and as a result, the defendant was diagnosed as the additional disease of this case since one year has passed since the date of occurrence of the accident, which shows a significant gap between the date of the accident and the date of the diagnosis, and the TV set which could cause the additional disease of this case is not clearly confirmed. Accordingly, the accident of this case is concerned.