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

A. From December 2003 to April 9, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits on April 19, 2013 with a person who was engaged in the business of producing, supplying, installing, etc. materials for tunnels at Hoho Co., Ltd., and obtained approval for medical care on April 19, 2013.

B. On June 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional medical care benefits for illness on June 16, 2013 with respect to “vertebrate cupination” and “cupination.”

On July 2, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical treatment to an additional injury or disease on the ground that “(i) the so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called “the so-called so-called so-called so-called the so-called so-called “satis-called the so-called “satis-to-satis-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-satis-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-mor-

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the “safafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafa

Thus, the plaintiff's disposition of this case which did not recognize the causal relationship with the above injury since it constitutes a case where the disease already caused by occupational accident is additionally discovered and the medical care is required.

At the sixth date for pleading, the plaintiff asserts that vertec febrate spawn among the diseases in motion.