1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 14, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained approval for medical care from the Defendant with respect to the injury of “the pressure pressure of the second half-way emission pressure, the third half-way pressure, the third half-way pressure, the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the frame, the pelle of the upper half of the upper half of the aggregate, the pelle of the brain pelle, the pelle of the upper half of the upper half of the upper side (5-7), the blood thick, the upper part of the right side, the pelle of the upper part of the upper side, the pelle, the pelle of the upper part of the upper side, and the pelle of the upper side (e.g., head, etc.)” caused by the crash accident (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

B. After that, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “malutism, workplace,” “malutism damage,” and “salutism,” and filed an application for additional injury and disease with the Defendant on October 7, 2014.

C. Accordingly, on December 16, 2014, the Defendant approved the Plaintiff as an additional injury to the neutronism and workplace. However, the Defendant issued a non-approval on the ground that there is no opinion on the damage of the neutism and the leutism (hereinafter referred to as the “eutronic disease in this case”) in MOI on the ground that there is no opinion on the leutical pathal disease and the opinion on the escape of the conical signboard, and there is no opinion on the leutical side, etc. that can be seen as the leutism in the state of walking, and that there is little causal link with the disaster.

(hereinafter referred to as the "instant Disposition") d.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination to the Defendant, but was dismissed on February 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5 evidence, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was suffering from a wound of the instant accident.

Therefore, the disposition of this case, which reported differently, is unlawful even though the non-occupational disease of this case constitutes occupational disease.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

(c)an injury already occurred due to an occupational accident in order to recognize that an additional injury was caused by the occupational accident.