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

A. On August 28, 2012, the Plaintiff received medical care until March 31, 2014 due to a disaster attributable to trees (hereinafter “the instant disaster”) in the course of the tree control work, which was “the troke, 1st century - the 5th Crossing the instant disaster, 9, and 10 chest pressure mortars, both sides of the instant plant, the pyromosomes, the pyromossis, the eromossis of the instant plant, the eromossis of the instant plant, and the eromossis damage to the right-side (hereinafter “the already approved plant disease”).

B. On February 20, 2013, when the Plaintiff had been receiving medical care, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional injury and disease with the Defendant regarding “Type 2 of the Complex M&L” with the Defendant. On March 28, 2013, the Defendant filed a request for examination on the following grounds: (i) 11 items (i) under the standards for the recognition of the Complex M&L E&L in accordance with the Association B (B), and (ii) 3 secondary temperature, side temperature, (iv) skin type, (v) skin, (v) chilling of annual installments, (vi) chilling of annual installments, (iv) reduction of the scope of office or exercise, (v) reduction of the scope of office or exercise, (v) changes in the trophical nature of the aggregate in the simple radiation examination, (v) referring to the opinion that there is more than eight opinions on the combined M&L in the C&L, and (v) the further request for examination and its rejection was entirely dismissed.

C. After that, on August 28, 2014, the Defendant: (a) enacted the “Guideline on the Performance of the Business Affairs of the Complex Tracked Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad

Accordingly, on August 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for additional medical care and additional medical care for the “Type 2 of the Complex Traculation,” but on August 28, 2015, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of non-approval of additional medical care and additional medical care for the reason that “it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relation with the instant accident” from the Defendant on the grounds that “the Type 2 of the Complex Maccomplication,” which was “it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relation with the instant accident (which falls short of the criteria for symptoms and signs).” However, the Plaintiff filed a petition for examination on the ground that it