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 December 4, 2015, the Plaintiff was an employee working in “B,” and was diagnosed as having been diagnosed as having been affected by 3 meters high level of height as a sloping of the housing located in Daegu-gu Seo-gu, Daegu-gu (hereinafter “instant accident”), i.e., the closure of the sloping structure on the left, i.e., the closure of the sloping frame on the left-hand 2, i.e., the e., the e., the e., the left-hand e.g., the e., the e., the e., the upper-hand e.g., the upper-hand e., the upper-hand e.g., the e.,

B. On January 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with respect to the above injury and disease. On February 25, 2016, the Defendant approved the Plaintiff’s medical care for “the closure of the upper part of the aggregate, the closure of the upper part of the middle part of the aggregate, the left part of the upper part of the aggregate, and the salt and tension of the eropis,” and issued a disposition not to approve the Plaintiff’s medical care benefits.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”), and the injury and disease without approval shall be the same as the injury and disease of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant injury and disease”).

In response to the instant disposition, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination, but the Defendant dismissed the request for examination around August 2016 on the ground that the injury and disease in the instant case is not recognized as a proximate causal relation with the instant accident.

The Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination, but was dismissed by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on November 17, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff fell from the bridge on the day of the accident of this case, and caused knee and kneeeeeel. Since the disease of this case occurred due to the accident of this case, the disposition of this case which approved the non-approval of medical care is unlawful.

B. The evidence mentioned prior to the facts of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, and Eul evidence No. 3 (including each number if there are serial numbers).