1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On December 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits for the above injury and disease with the Defendant on April 19, 2013, alleging that the Plaintiff had received the diagnosis of the “Saeng-gu escape certificate and the No. 4-5 during the work,” and that there was no proximate causal relation between the above branch and the Plaintiff’s work on May 23, 2013, the Plaintiff rendered a disposition not to grant medical care on the ground that there was no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s work.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the disposition of non-approval for the above medical care under the Changwon District Court 2013Gudan957. On June 23, 2015, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the judgment revoking the part concerning the Habong-Mack-si in the disposition of non-approval for the above medical care due to the recognition of the proximate causal relationship between the Habong-Jeng-Jeng and the Plaintiff’s business among the above injury and disease, and the judgment became final and conclusive.

In accordance with the above judgment, the Defendant issued a disposition to approve the medical care benefits for the period from December 24, 2012 to June 21, 2013 to the Sim-dong Empic Disease (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”) to the Plaintiff. After the medical care was completed, the Defendant determined the disability grade for the Plaintiff’s Empiccom as class 10 (the person who remains after the patience in the national department) and paid disability benefits of class 5,430,280 to the Plaintiff.

On July 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-treatment with the Defendant for re-treatment on the ground that the instant injury and disease continues to be repeated after the completion of the medical care and need medical care. On August 28, 2015, the Defendant rendered a non-approval of the re-treatment on the ground that the Plaintiff’s situation has not deteriorated and the treatment effect is not expected due to the re-treatment, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. After the completion of medical care for the instant injury and disease of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the state of the injury and disease becomes worse, and on January 2015.