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 January 27, 1995, the Plaintiff received the approval of the occupational accident with respect to the cerebral ties (hereinafter “existing injury and disease”) and received the determination of disability grade 2 as a result of the completion of medical treatment on April 30, 2002. On April 8, 2016, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with a chronic hiverosis (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”).

B. On May 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional medical care benefits with the Defendant that the instant injury and disease occurred and requires an surgery. On June 16, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for additional medical care benefits with the Defendant for additional injury and re-treatment on the ground that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to voluntarily form cerebral he/she due to the use of anti-emergencys to prevent the “Closure of Brain,” which is an existing injury and disease (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review and reexamination. However, the request for review was dismissed on September 27, 2016, and the request for review was dismissed on February 20, 2017.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion had been recovered every day from the previous injury disease for 20 years. On April 8, 2016, in light of the fact that, after having been hospitalized with diagnosis on the instant injury and having suspended the use of uniforms from the time to June 28, 2016 and the result of the inspection conducted after the lapse of time, the instant injury and disease was completely extinguished due to the reduction of cerebrovassis, the instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise, even if there was a proximate causal relation that the instant injury and disease were caused by the antissis, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

B. A worker who is receiving medical care due to an occupational accident under Article 49 (Application for Medical Care Benefits for Additional Injury or Disease) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”) related regulations may apply for medical care benefits for the injury or disease in any of the following cases:

1. The duties of the Corporation;