1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. While a vessel processing business operator worked for Nonparty B’s pipeline hole, the Plaintiff received medical care from Nonparty 1, 2009 to July 15, 2010 on the ground that “The instant accident was caused by the fall accident (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”) and “the pressure frame of 1, 200 and the pressure frame (10%) on each side of the chills (hereinafter referred to as “the first injury and disease”).

B. On April 25, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval of an additional injury and disease with respect to “The pressure frame No. 3 of the Mestal Year, and the Mestal Mestal Mestal Mestal Mestal Mestal Mestal Mestal Mestal.” However, on May 18, 2010, the Defendant issued a non-approval disposition on the ground that the pressure frame No. 3 of the Mestal Mestal Mestal

In addition, on February 21, 201, the day after the completion of medical care, the Plaintiff applied for an additional injury and disease with respect to “multi-modal disease (Type 2),” but the Defendant rendered a non-approval disposition on April 15, 201 on the ground that there was no medical proximate causal relation between the first accident and the approved branch.

C. On June 20, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a further application for an additional disease with respect to “The pressure frame No. 3, the latter mathosis, the Complex Madneology (Type 2), the Madneology dneology flusium, the Madneology flusium (verte inverte), the Madneum flusium, the Madneum flusium (verte inverte), the Madneum flusium, the Madle flusium, and the Madne flusium (hereinafter “each additional disease in this case”). However, on December 7, 2012, the Defendant filed an application for the instant disposition on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation with the first chronic elusium for the entire part unrelated to the first approved occupational accident of the Plaintiff and its spine.”

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the instant disposition without going through the previous trial procedure.

[Ground of recognition] A. 1, A. 1, B. 2, 3, 7, 8, 13.