1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 서울도시철도엔지니어링㈜에 고용된 근로자로서, 2010. 3. 9. 물탱크실 정수위밸브 교체작업 중 밸브에서 나온 물을 받은 양동이를 들어 하수구에 버리기 위하여 몸을 돌리던 중 허리를 삐끗하였다

(hereinafter “instant disaster.” The Plaintiff received the diagnosis of the Johovason Zone, and applied for the medical care benefits for industrial accident to the Defendant. From March 23, 2010 to March 23, 2010, the Plaintiff applied for the medical care benefits from the Defendant.

4. Until October 30, approval for medical care for 39 days was obtained.

B. On March 2, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) taken his/her own scopic image from the radiation department; (b) taken a diagnosis of “the escape certificate of the 5th TWT - the 1,000 popic screen”; and (c) applied for additional medical care to the Defendant on April 7, 2010; (d) on April 21, 2010, the Defendant issued a disposition of non-approval by taking the scopic image irrelevant to the instant disaster.

In this regard, the plaintiff filed a request for an examination, but the defendant decided to dismiss it on July 2010, and the plaintiff filed a request for reexamination, but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee decided to dismiss it on November 3, 2010.

C. On December 7, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) was diagnosed with “the escape certificate of conical signboards between 3-4-5 and 1,00” (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”); and (b) was administered on February 27, 2012 by using the Dongdaemun-gu string hospital; (c) 3-4-5 square meters-1, 1,000 and balptical convergence between spine; and (d) was conducted on February 27, 2012.

On April 19, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional and additional medical care due to the instant accident. However, on May 22, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval on the ground that the instant injury and disease was only a sediment disease unrelated to the instant accident.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Based on recognition] / Each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the key issue of this case occurred from the instant accident.