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

A. On August 22, 2012, when the Plaintiff was employed at B elementary school and worked as a bus driver on August 1, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant on August 22, 2012. However, on October 9, 2012, the Defendant applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the relevant disease and the relevant disease (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”) on the ground that it is found that there is no satise, satise, satise, satise, satise-1, 100, 200, 3-4, vertebrode cat, verterode sat, and 4-5, 4-5, 2012.

B. On December 3, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on the ground that “In the instant accident on February 27, 2010, the Plaintiff suffered bodily injury from the 5th century-1,000 vertebregnife inverts and vertebregrife inverts between the 4-5th and the 4-5th century (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant injury”). However, on the ground that proximate causal relation between the instant accident No. 1 and the instant injury and the instant injury are not recognized, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to approve the Plaintiff’s application (hereinafter referred to as “instant No. 1 disposition”).

C. On March 11, 2013 after the Plaintiff closed medical care, the Plaintiff claimed disability benefits for spine, but the Defendant, on April 2, 2013, applied for disability benefits to the Defendant. However, on April 2, 2013, the Plaintiff’s disability status was limited to the exerciseable area of Section 3 of Section 3 in spine 3 in a state where spine ebrate ebrate ebrate was performed under Section 3 of Section 3-4 of Section 1,00. However, the said disability status was limited to the ebrate ebrate ebrate ebronism