1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On July 6, 2007, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as an occupational accident, and was determined as Grade VII of the disability grade by the Defendant after closing medical care for the injury and disease with the previous approval on March 31, 2012.

The Plaintiff asserted the need for additional medical care from April 6, 2012 due to the “Cystoomy rate” and applied for approval of additional medical care and payment of temporary layoff benefits with respect to each of the above injury and disease to the Defendant on November 25, 2015.

On January 29, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to approve the Plaintiff’s above application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s state of injury and disease can be treated as preservation without requiring active treatment.”

On the other hand, on July 12, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for approval of additional medical care and payment of temporary disability compensation benefits for “bloatosis, hyeitis, and baline urine,” and on July 28, 2016, the Defendant approved the Plaintiff’s additional medical care for “bloatitis” among the above injury and issued a disposition of non-approval of additional medical care for the remainder of the injury.

【Ground of recognition” without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleading as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's present situation has deteriorated more than at the time of completion of medical care for injury and disease caused by the previous approval, and the plaintiff is continuously receiving substantial treatment, and the plaintiff can expect the treatment effect for improvement of state, regardless of whether the treatment is active or preserved or not, so it constitutes subject to additional

Nevertheless, the defendant's disposition of this case which rejected the plaintiff's application on the ground that active treatment of the plaintiff is unnecessary is unlawful.

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff of medical opinion is now limited.