1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 5, 2016, the Plaintiff, as a worker of B, obtained medical care approval from the Defendant with respect to “the open upper part of the catus catus catus, 4, 5, and 6 of the catus catus catus catus catus (hereinafter “instant accident”) and the outer upper part of the catus catus, the right upper part of the wall, and the right upper part of the wall” (hereinafter “approval injury”).

B. On January 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an additional injury and disease application against the Defendant on the ground that “the first injury and disease of this case” (hereinafter “the first injury and disease of this case”). However, on the 13th of the same month, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of the additional injury and disease (hereinafter “instant first action”) on the ground that “the medical causal relationship between the shoulder’s string and the first accident cannot be acknowledged when considering the fact that four months have passed after the disaster.”

C. On November 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an additional application for injury and disease with the Defendant on the grounds that the person who had been on credit for a long time after the credit set “the instant second injury and disease” (hereinafter “the instant second injury and disease”). However, on December 22, 201 of the same year, the Defendant issued an additional non-approval disposition on the ground that “the additional application for injury and disease is not clearly identified as a result of the patient examination and reference materials examination, and it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship with the approved injury and disaster circumstances” (hereinafter “instant second disposition”), and the instant first and second dispositions collectively referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff sustained injuries from the accident of this case where metal blades fall down on the right shoulder, other than the cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cages and the pleble cage cage cages, and the plaintiff claimed physical treatment at the time of hospitalization, but at the time of