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

A. On December 6, 2002, the Plaintiff obtained the approval of medical care as an injury or disease in the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the medical care, and received the diagnosis of the “hump 2, 3 pressure frame, escape certificate of conical signboards No. 4-5 of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part,” and received the diagnosis of the “hump 4-5 p

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for additional medical care to the Defendant on the part of the injury or disease in the vertebrate verte No. 3-4 (hereinafter the instant injury or disease), but the Defendant filed an application for additional medical care on 10 January 2016.

5. The Plaintiff rendered the instant disposition that rejected the application for re-treatment on the ground that “Although vertebrate, accompanied by flicking flicks in the section No. 3-4, is recognized, it is difficult to deem that there was a relationship with the disaster that occurred in 2002.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the injury or disease of this case is adjacent to the first injury or disease that the Plaintiff obtained approval, and thus, is likely to have a proximate causal relationship between the first injury or disease and the first injury or disease.

Therefore, the injury or disease of this case is subject to additional medical care under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Medical opinion 1) 1) The head of the Gu of B Hospital No. 4-5 in 2007, and the 5th Annives No. 5-T. 1 in spine tebrate tebrates and the postside tebrates No. 3-4 in 2007 are required to be treated. 2) The advisory doctor of the Defendant branch's office's office's advisory doctor 1: The injury and disease in this case occurred due to the adjacent ebrate ebrate ebrates, which are accompanied by flive flicks in Section 3-4 in 2002. However, it is difficult to view that the injury and disease in this case were related to the accident in 202.