The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The requirements for additional medical care under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act are the same as the first medical care and its nature, except that the medical care is provided after the first medical care is completed, except that the first medical care is provided after the first medical care is completed.

Therefore, in order to be subject to additional medical care, there is a medical proximate causal relation between the first injury and the first injury and the injury and disease in addition to the requirements of the medical care, and there is a medical opinion that the symptoms are worse than the injury and disease at the time of the completion of the treatment of the first injury and the injury and disease at the time of the payment of disability benefits.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1762 Decided 26, 2002). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the injury or disease applied for the re-treatment of the instant case was not subject to the re-treatment on the grounds that there was no proximate causal relationship between the two, on the grounds that it cannot be deemed that the injury or disease applied for the re-treatment of the instant case was caused by the recurrence or aggravation of the injury or disease resulting from the previous

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the rules of evidence, inconsistency with the reasoning, and the requirements for additional medical care, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.