1. Of the instant lawsuit, December 2, 2013 regarding the “Saeman Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine,” among the instant lawsuit.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 2013, while the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “Stop fevers on the both sides,” and applied for the first medical care benefits on September 28, 2013, while carrying out the work of delivering and installing electronic equipment in the hybrid (hereinafter “Stop”).”

B. On December 2, 2013, the Defendant approved the Plaintiff’s application for medical care with respect to “the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the right line,” and on the ground that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with the business of the opening of the opening of the closing on the grounds that it is difficult to

C. Meanwhile, at the time of the first application for medical care benefits, the Plaintiff omitted the “satisfe-satisfe-satt-satisfe-satt-satt-satt-satt-satt-satisf

On June 13, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to not approve the application for additional injury and disease (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relation with the additional duties of the Plaintiff.

E. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the first disposition, filed a review and a request for reexamination, but was entirely dismissed on or around April 2014 and August 2014. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the second disposition, filed a review and a request for reexamination, but was dismissed on or around October 2014 and January 2015 respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 7, 8, Eul evidence 1 to 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit (limited to the part of the claim for revocation of partial approval of the non-approval of the medical care in the part of the Disposition No. 1 against the "Saeman Dom Dom Dom Dom Ham-gu"), we examine ex officio as to the legality of the part of the claim regarding "Sam Dom Dom

When an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its effect and shall no longer exist.