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

A. On January 9, 2014, the Plaintiff was born, and on which the Defendant filed an additional application for an additional injury or disease with respect to “the part of the part of the part of the visiting party” (hereinafter “application injury or disease”).

B. On January 21, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of the additional injury and disease (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “MRI photographs confirming the partial wave of the photo, but it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship with the disaster as it is judged in non-commerciality.”

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for examination of the instant disposition. On March 18, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the instant disposition on the ground that “ARI and an applicant’s disease caused by external wounds on video data from the MF and tolerances, is not recognized, and the opinion of acute exposure due to external wounds, such as side race, blood species, etc., is not observed in the right shoulder, and, on the other hand, it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the applicant branch of the instant disposition and the disaster and the approved injury.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-2 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On December 14, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that there was an applicant injury or disease by facing the right shoulder and the knife on the knife while serving around 09:30 on December 14, 2013.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. As a result of the court’s entrustment of physical examination to the Chungcheong University Hospital, there is no opinion of the applicant injury and disease to the Plaintiff according to the results of each fact-finding with respect to C Hospital. As to the Plaintiff’s occurrence of injury and disease in line with the Gohap on December 14, 2013, it is not sufficient to recognize the Plaintiff solely with the descriptions of evidence No. 5-1 and evidence No. 6, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.