1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On August 6, 2013, the Plaintiff received the medical care approval for the “the escape certificate of a conical signboard between the 2-3st century, and the escape certificate of a recomponent signboard between the 4-5st and the 4-5st century,” and received the medical care until April 15, 2014.

On May 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an additional injury and disease application with the Defendant as “the escape certificate of the 3-4 conical signboard” (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”).

(hereinafter “Application for Additional Injury and Disease.” On June 25, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision not to accept the said application on the ground that the pertinent application was not an escape certificate, but an escape certificate of the conical signboard in an expansion state, on the ground that the pertinent conical signboard was not an escape certificate.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff filed a petition for review against the instant disposition with the Defendant around that time.

On December 7, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the above request for review on the ground that the instant injury or disease is not recognized as a proximate causal relation with a disaster, since it is only observed only by changes in the state of departure, such as the change of side signboards and an expansion leap, which was taken on September 30, 2013 in the MDR No. 3-4 of the MF.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 7 evidence, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. On April 15, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was receiving treatment for an injury or disease with the approval of the Plaintiff, and receiving additional medical care on March 17, 2015 due to symptoms malicious, following the completion of treatment. As a result, on May 21, 2015, the “escape” of the 3-4 protruding signboards was confirmed.

The injury or disease of this case constitutes a ductal disease caused by the Plaintiff’s work at the burden (such as cutting of iron plates, cutting off, fluoring, transporting, etc.) conducted during the period from August 25, 190, and should undergo deliberation by the Occupational Disease Determination Committee. The Defendant neglected to apply for additional injury or disease to the injury or disease of this case, depending on his opinion of advisory opinion, based on disregarding it.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) judgment;