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

(B) The Plaintiff received a diagnosis of “the instant accident” on February 3, 2016 and filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on February 3, 2016.

On March 9, 2016, the Defendant appears to have reached an opinion on the Plaintiff on March 9, 2016 on the following: “The prestigious fever and the intrastigious pyropty fever, which had been operated on the right suspher on October 28, 2015 in the right sussphere MI, are the opinions of the Plaintiff: (a) the presphere fever and the intraspopic sphere fever were implemented rather than the resphere due to a sudden trauma; and (b) it is reasonable to recognize the absence of causation with a disaster. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the instant decision on medical treatment on the ground that there is no clear causal relationship with a disaster (hereinafter “instant decision”). < Amended by Act No. 13588, Oct. 28, 2015; Act No. 13588, Dec. 16, 2015; Act No. 13588, Dec. 2, 2019, 2019>

Although the Plaintiff filed a request for examination against this, it was dismissed on June 28, 2016, the Plaintiff again filed a request for reexamination, but it was also dismissed on November 14, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, 12, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was not less than kneeeel before the instant accident.

At the time of the accident, since the head of the site and the head of the Ban were working as the head of the site at the time of the accident, knee has a lot of knee, but it continued without proper treatment for construction schedule

Even after the accident in this case, the plaintiff cannot be seen.