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 November 24, 2015, the Plaintiff received medical treatment as “the cutting of 2,3 resins” from the Defendant due to an occupational accident that led to the pressure of fingers in gold, and received a judgment of class 11 applicable mutatis mutandis to the disability grade from the Defendant.

B. From August 7, 2013 to October 14, 2013, the Plaintiff closed the medical treatment after receiving additional medical care and then closed the treatment. The Plaintiff received preventive management, such as the primary merger certificate, from October 15, 2013 to October 14, 2014, from the Defendant, as “the nephical chronic dynamics” and received preventive management, such as the secondary merger certificate, from October 15, 2014 to October 14, 2015.

C. On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for preventive management re-approval (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Defendant received preventive management services, such as a merger certificate, for two years, from the Plaintiff on October 7, 2015 and received preventive management services, such as a merger certificate, for two years (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”). D.

The Plaintiff filed a petition for review against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on December 28, 2015, and filed a petition for review on March 23, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion was not confirmed as the multiple-complications after filing an application for preventive management, such as a merger certificate, even though it was not determined twice from October 15, 2013 to October 14, 2015, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was treated as the address of the 2, 3 balance cut and chronic dys from the left side and the need for long-term treatment and observation of symptoms since there was no call for symptoms, etc., the instant disposition was unlawful since it was in violation of discretionary authority, based on the relevant provision that preventive management, such as merger certificate, etc. was not extended twice or more.