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 September 18, 2015, the Plaintiff was suffering from an accident to examine the parts of the arms and elbows on the floor while turning off from the leg during the tegythy construction, and applied for recognition of occupational accidents.

B. On October 26, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant non-approval disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that the “satisfe satum satum satums on the left satum, left satum satum satum satum, and left satum satum satum satums on the left satum” (hereinafter “the instant injury”) is not recognized as an occupational injury.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition for review and reexamination, but all of which were dismissed.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence No. 1, and the ground for appeal

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion was diagnosed as the injury and disease of this case due to the accident, it constitutes occupational accident.

B. According to the application for medical opinion medical care benefits, it is necessary to maintain stability by wearing a creative treatment and external devices after the operation, and to observe the progress by fixing it to the tin shelf.

According to X-ray and MRI's opinion, it is difficult to recognize that the revolving revolving of the defendant's original disposition agency is likely to have a chronic renal wave rather than a simple one-time disaster.

2. Advice 2: ERI's opinion on the revolving revolving, however, it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between disasters and revolving revolving disasters because it is judged that it is difficult to occur due to a revolving disaster in terms of the amount of revolving disasters.

It is small that the examination agency's opinion of advisory doctor causes chronic renal failure.