The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 25, 2012, the Plaintiff was an employee of the Plaintiff Company B, and was diagnosed by the Plaintiff on August 25, 2012, as “the Plaintiff’s employees of the Plaintiff, at the time of the dissolution of the C Association, of the abandonment cutting in front of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the lower part, of the upper half of the upper part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part, of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part, of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the judgment, the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the judgment, and of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the judgment.”

B. The Plaintiff received medical care until August 30, 2014 with respect to the previous injury and disease recognized by the Defendant as an occupational accident.

(c)

On August 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an additional application for medical care and injury to the Defendant with respect to “an unstable symptoms between the 2-3 times of war” (hereinafter “instant applicant’s disease”).

(d)

On October 21, 2016, the Defendant deemed that it was due to changes in her eurity rather than external wounds to the Plaintiff, and the treatment effect due to re-medical care is not expected without clearly showing unstable symptoms, and the injury and disease in the instant case was not approved all of the applications for additional injury and re-medical care on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the relationship with the person equivalent to the existing injury and disease due to an accident due to the eurbing of 3-4 pulse that is unrelated to disaster (hereinafter “instant disposition”). E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for reexamination following the examination procedure, but was dismissed on June 23, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff had undergone a close inspection with severe pains even at the time of undergoing an operation due to an occupational accident that occurred on August 25, 2012, but did not find out the cause of Finine, and the Plaintiff is finite, finite, and cinite.