1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is Birs and was injured in order to suppress a fire that occurred in the intra-company dormitory on April 3, 1998 while serving in Samdo Co., Ltd.

B. The Defendant provided the Plaintiff with medical care benefits on April 9, 1998 to April 30, 1998, and on June 9 through 8, 198, the Defendant issued a disposition not to grant medical care benefits on the ground that “influoral siums and boomings inside the satisium,” on August 1, 1998.

C. On October 9, 1998, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for medical care benefits related to the “competence of anti-sexual assistant principal”, and on November 17, 1998, the Defendant issued a non-approval of medical care on the ground that it is irrelevant to the initial accident against the Plaintiff.

On January 20, 200, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional injury and disease against the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff filed an application for additional injury and disease against the Defendant on March 7, 2000. The Defendant issued an approval against the Plaintiff on March 7, 200.

(hereinafter referred to as “qualified soldiers”) e.b. Ma

On March 11, 200, the defendant rendered a decision on the disability grade No. 10 No. 12 against the plaintiff.

F. The Plaintiff filed an application for additional medical care on March 27, 2012, and on April 19, 2012, for additional medical care to the Defendant on the ground of “the type 1 type of multi-purpose perjury, the abnormal walking and movement, the aftermathing of dives damage, the aftermathing of dives, and other damage (hereinafter “applicant injury”).

G. On May 11, 2012, the Defendant issued a non-approval disposition of additional medical care on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relation with the industrial accident and the approved branch caused on April 3, 1998” with respect to the Plaintiff, and on May 22, 2012, to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the applicant’s disease constitutes a non-approval injury, and does not meet the requirements for additional medical care.”

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") No approval of additional injury or disease and non-approval of additional medical care. (h)

On July 3, 2012, the plaintiff is "the defendant."