1. The Defendant’s disposition of site payment for medical care expenses rendered to the Plaintiff on May 8, 2015 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 28, 2002, the Plaintiff was faced with an accident that falls at a construction site and fell (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and was diagnosed “the pelkes of the earth side, the scopical base, the scopical base, the scopical base, the scopical base, the right-hand bottom, and the scopical signboard escape certificate”, and received treatment under the Defendant’s first medical care benefit approval from around that time to April 30, 2006.

B. On February 13, 2012, at the hospital B, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as the “Post-Prison Disease Control Group” (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”), and on March 28, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted the relevance between the instant accident and the instant injury and filed an application for additional medical care benefits and re-medical care benefits with respect to the instant injury and disease. However, on April 2, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition not to approve each application on the ground that “the instant injury and disease are not related to the instant accident, and the symptoms of the previous diagnosis cannot be deemed to have disappeared or aggravated.”

C. On June 26, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit (Seoul Administrative Court 2012Gudan14760) against the Defendant seeking revocation of the revocation of the non-approval of the medical care benefits for additional injury and injury. The Defendant approved the instant injury and injury and injury as an additional injury and injury to the Defendant on August 20, 2013 when the first instance court was pending, but maintained the disposition of non-approval of the medical care benefits. Ultimately, on October 22, 2014 (Seoul High Court 2013Nu31419), the Plaintiff sought revocation of the non-approval of the medical care benefits for additional injury and injury and injury on the ground that there is no longer the subject of seeking revocation of the non-approval of the medical care benefits for the injury and injury, and the judgment was rendered against the Defendant on the ground that the medical care benefits for the instant injury and injury were not recognized as a need for the revocation of the non-approval of the medical care benefits benefits benefits for the injury and injury. The judgment became final and conclusive on March 12, 20154.

On the other hand, on April 8, 2015, the Plaintiff is against the Defendant.