1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. At around 23:20 on November 1, 2009, the Plaintiff got off the third floor of the ground building B (hereinafter “instant office”) and fell around 1.5 meters from the 3rd floor to the 2nd floor (hereinafter “instant accident”). On November 1, 2009, the Plaintiff got out of the 3rd floor of the building B (hereinafter “instant office”).

B. On January 20, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care with the Defendant for the instant accident, alleging that the instant accident resulted in “the nuclear blasting of conical signboards between the 4-5th century and that between the 10-11-12th century” (hereinafter “instant injury”). However, on February 1, 2010, the Defendant observed the escape check of the signboards between “10 chest-12 and the 4-5th century” on February 1, 2010, but this seems to have no causal link with the instant accident due to the existing depression.

C. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the above disposition, filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the medical care non-approval disposition as Seoul Administrative Court 201Gudan3022, but rejected the lawsuit. However, the Seoul High Court 2012Nu34230 sentenced to the revocation of the above disposition on the ground that the instant accident and the instant injury and disease were causations, and the Defendant appealed with the Supreme Court 2013Du1386, but the appeal was dismissed on June 13, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

On December 3, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff’s application for medical care benefits on January 20, 2010 on the ground that “it is difficult for the Plaintiff to see it as an employee, and it is difficult to see it as an accident that occurred during the course of performing his/her duties.”

E. The Plaintiff filed a request for review seeking revocation of the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on May 8, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 19, 20 evidence, Eul 7 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff.