1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In occupational accidents occurred on January 13, 2013, the Plaintiff received medical care benefits for the medical care benefits for the term “as regards “a result of an approved injury” (hereinafter “approval injury”), “from January 13, 2013 to March 31, 2014,” with the period of medical care.

B. On May 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for additional medical care benefits for an injury or disease on the ground that “the head award by fall on March 20, 2014” (hereinafter “the applicant’s injury or disease”).

C. On May 27, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision on non-approval of the injury or disease (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the applicant’s disease is not likely to have a proximate causal relation with the disaster” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 5, 6 evidence, Eul 1-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff suffered from a face-to-face injury on the wind, which goes beyond the stairs of the first floor, while returning home after receiving a outpatient treatment due to an approved injury or disease.

The plaintiff was in a state where brain was considerably inconvenient due to cerebral color among approved diseases, and the outbreak was highly likely to vaddy due to decrease in the recognition ability for objects or spatial sense.

Since there is a proximate causal relation with a disaster, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and 3-1, 2, and 3-3, the Plaintiff’s appeal from the Dae-computer Hospital on January 13, 2014 to the water treatment on March 20, 2014, and on March 21, 2014.

However, there is no evidence to prove that there was an accident that the plaintiff had been returning to Korea after completing the treatment at the Computerization Hospital.

. of this Court.