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

A. On February 24, 2012, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by the Defendant on a job-related accident (hereinafter “the instant accident”) that occurred while working to cut a fluorial house at the site of the construction of the construction site of the Handong-dong, Busan (hereinafter “Seoul”) and approved the Defendant’s medical care for the instant approved disease.

B. On February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an additional injury and disease application with the Defendant for the escape certificate of a memorial signboard No. 6-7 (hereinafter “instant additional injury and disease”).

C. On March 6, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to approve the above additional sickness application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant application for additional sickness was filed twice with the same injury and disease.

Although the Defendant cited the same reasons for the instant disposition, it appears to have disposed of the instant additional wound, which is the reason for non-approval of the previous disposition, by citing the reason for “the instant additional wound is due to a change of emerculation and it does not have a proximate causal relation with the instant disaster.” Thus, the following is to be determined by deeming the reason for the instant disposition as identical

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 7 evidence, Eul evidence 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that there was no more than a part above before the disaster of this case. At the time of the accident of this case, the Plaintiff was shocked on the part above the left part, and the additional wound of this case occurred.

Therefore, since the medical care for the instant additional injury and disease should be approved, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Plaintiff 1’s medical opinion