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

A. On or around December 24, 2012, the Plaintiff, who was employed in B and worked in B, was diagnosed as “the escape certificate of the 4-5 square meters and the 5th century” at a hospital (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”) and applied for medical care to the Defendant on May 10, 2013.

B. On September 24, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval for medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) taking into account (i) an influence certificate accompanied by a fluoral protruding signboard display, a compromise mark, etc. on the self-official screen (MRI).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for reexamination, but was dismissed on November 22, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 3

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff continued to perform the work that imposes a burden on the deceased while serving in the automobile industry company for 22 years, and thus the defendant's disposition of this case, which did not approve medical care, was unlawful.

B. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the medical record appraisal of the Plaintiff’s Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, and 11, the following facts were revealed: (a) the Plaintiff’s 4-5 drilling was not out of escape; and (b) the Plaintiff’s flive signboard was merely a flick or vertebrate vertecule in spine; (c) the 5th and 1,00 converging signboards had the symptoms of the flive and both sides of the flive and both sides of the flive buckbucks, even if there were the escape opinions; and (d) the fact that there was no flive and abnormal symptoms that are suitable for the flive flive flive flive flive flive flive flive flive flive flive flive flive flive flive flives.