A. At around 09:00 on October 1, 2008, the Plaintiff, a subcontractor of a promotion company, suffered from an accident suitable for the head (hereinafter “instant accident”) with the hack pipe, after the Plaintiff had been employed by her worker at anchor and construction company (hereinafter “the instant accident”). As a result, the Plaintiff provided medical care from the date of the instant accident to January 27, 2009 with the Defendant’s medical treatment approval after obtaining the Defendant’s medical treatment approval for the injury of “the hackbring, skeing, skeing, skeing, skeing, skeing, skeing, stoke, stoke, stoke, stoke, stoke, and stokeed stokes on the left side.”

B. On December 9, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that a mental disorder caused by the instant accident (hereinafter “the instant accident”) occurred, and filed an application for additional medical care for the Defendant from March 19, 201 to March 19, 2013. On December 29, 201, the Defendant filed an application for additional medical care for the period from March 19, 2010 to March 19, 2013. On December 29, 2011, the Defendant determined that the instant accident was caused by personal and household stress rather than a disaster in light of the fact that he/she was born to the psychiatrist after the lapse of the extended period of time after the instant accident, and it is difficult to identify the causal relationship between the current mental problem and the disaster, making it difficult to recognize the causal relationship with the disaster (hereinafter “instant disposition”). In addition, the Defendant did not file an application for additional medical care for the same reason as the instant case (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with each of the dispositions in this case and filed a request for review with the Defendant, but was dismissed on June 28, 2012.

[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate