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 February 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, as Uzbekistan workers, was subject to medical care from February 6, 2014 to September 22, 2014, where he/she was suffering from an accident where he/she had a paind c-4 in the lusium, and was subject to the determination of class 14 of the disability grade after receiving medical care from February 6 to September 22, 2014.

B. However, on March 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional medical care by asserting that it is necessary to perform an operation on the essential book.

C. On June 11, 2014 and February 23, 2015, the Defendant issued the instant disposition of non-approval of re-treatment to the Plaintiff on March 25, 2015 on the ground that the state of injury and disease does not seem to have deteriorated and that it is difficult to expect treatment effects to improve the symptoms drastically through surgery.

On September 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination, but was dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 3 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. While the Plaintiff’s assertion completed non-surgical treatment and recuperation, the Plaintiff still surged with severe pains on the right side of the mouth, and the period of time has deteriorated, causing trouble in occupational activities and daily life. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s medical treatment conducted at B Hospital around March 6, 2015, shows the symptoms of sexual escape during the right side between B Hospital No. 3-4 and repeated through radiation. Thus, it is difficult to view the disease of this case as a mere chromatic pain, and thus, it can be viewed as a mere chromatic pain, and thus, the instant disposition of this case, which the Defendant approved non-surgical medical care, was unlawful.

B. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 4-1, 2, 3, and Gap evidence No. 5, it is not confirmed that the plaintiff's opinion of escape requiring an surgical treatment is not confirmed on the conical signboard No. 3-4 of the plaintiff's MRI et al., and Gap evidence No. 1 and No. 2 submitted by the plaintiff.