2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

A. On February 21, 1994, the Plaintiff joined the Embrymsung Factory Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Company”) (hereinafter “Non-Party Company”).

B. On September 22, 201, while working in Nonparty Company B, the Plaintiff applied for medical care of the instant case to the Defendant for occupational injury by repeatedly performing the work involving a burden on the shoulder, following the Plaintiff’s check-out to the left shoulder, which was diagnosed as “on the left shoulder part of the check-out part of the unit (hereinafter “the instant first wound”).” However, although the Defendant applied for medical care on December 23, 201, the Defendant did not confirm clearly a high-speed opinion on the part of the shoulder, and it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship with the business of the branch of the instant case on the ground that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship with the business of the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s application for medical care was not approved on the ground that it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s application for medical care on the ground that the Defendant did not have a substantial burden on the shoulder, and on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relationship with the business of the branch of the instant case.

C. On August 16, 2011, the Plaintiff applied for medical care on the ground in the Do where the stop dancing of the product production facility has occurred, and the equipment and the ground level of 85 cm are found to be erroneous and abnormal, and the Plaintiff applied for medical care on the ground of the Plaintiff’s application for medical care on the ground that “The instant injury and disease occurred by repeatedly performing the work involving knee burden on the outside side of the left-hand skes (hereinafter “the second injury and disease in this case”)” to the Defendant, who is diagnosed as “the instant injury and disease occurred on the part of half-months outside the left-hand skes,” but the Defendant appears to have an intention of deportation in the MRI on January 2, 2012, because the degree of physical liability due to the work is low due to changes in the erosity of existing individual diseases, and thus, it is difficult to recognize proximate causal relation between the work of this case and the second injury in the feed.

The plaintiff is in the first and second dispositions of this case.