1. On January 23, 2019, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of part of the first medical care rendered to the Plaintiff on January 23, 2019, i.e., e., depression.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 21, 2018, while working in Company B, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on December 12, 2018, asserting that “the instant accident was diagnosed by the Defendant on the ground that the vehicle was crashed (hereinafter “instant accident”) including four or more clicks (6-12 on the left side and 3-4 on the right side), the click clicks (1-5 on the right side), the click clicks (turk 1-5 on the clicks), the clicks of external clicks, the two clicks of growth, the right side donation, the upper part of the growth, the upper part of the clicks of the left part, the heat damage, the inner part, the inner part, the inner part, the hick, the hicks of face, the hump, the hicking part of the humke, the right humke.”

B. On January 23, 2019, the Defendant approved the Plaintiff’s medical care in relation to the Plaintiff’s injury to the Plaintiff’s dysium (6-12 on the left side and 3-4 on the right side), including the dysium of four or more fysages (6-12 on the left side and 3-4 on the right side), the blood fysium of the right side, the fysium of the upper side (t. 1-5 on the right side), the upper part of the hysium, the inner part of the face, the inner part of the face, the hys of the face, the hysium of the right side, and the Defendant approved the medical care by changing the name of the upper part to the “sysal fysium

In addition, with respect to “the first injury and disease of this case,” the medical care non-approval disposition is rendered on the ground that “the first injury and disease of this case (hereinafter referred to as “the first injury and disease of this case”),” on the ground that “the second injury and disease of this case is not appropriate as the symptoms and disease name of this case and the injury and disease name of this case,” on the ground that “the second injury and disease of this case are not related to the accident of this case, and there is no causation,” and that “the second injury and disease of this case is not related to the first injury and disease of this case.”