1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On August 29, 2013, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as an occupational accident (hereinafter “the instant accident”) caused by the abortion while getting out of the find find fin removal in the underground floor at the construction site of the Seongbuk-gu 3 factory construction project in Changwon-gu, Changwon-si, Changwon-si. The Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the dined find find find find find in the underground floor” (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

The Plaintiff was not granted medical treatment from the Defendant, and the injury and disease of the Defendant’s 5 balance of the 5 balance of the 5 balance of the 5 balance of the 5 balance of the 5 balance of the Defendant, and the injury and disease of the 4-5-6 balance of the credit balance of the 4-6 balance of the 4-6 balance of the injury and disease of the Defendant (hereinafter “the first approved injury and disease”). The Plaintiff received medical treatment.

On April 18, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an additional medical care application with the Defendant with respect to the “satise mal satise satise satise satise satise satise sate sate sate 3-4, 6-7” (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”). However, the Defendant issued a non-approval disposition on May 16, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination to the Defendant, but was dismissed on July 2014, and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee filed a request for reexamination to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but was dismissed on September 25, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the virtual number), and the purport of the entire argument as to the validity of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case was legitimate before the disaster of this case did not have received medical treatment at once as to the disease of this case. According to the plaintiff's medical records and medical opinions related to the medical records, the disease of this case can be sufficiently proximate causal relation with the disaster of this case. Thus, although the disease of this case falls under the requirements for additional medical care, the disposition of this case without approval should be revoked illegally.

Medical opinion, the final diagnosis of the Plaintiff’s disease by the Plaintiff’s doctor(B Hospital) is 3.