1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff was suffering from occupational accidents on January 8, 2004 while working for New Zealand Tourism Co., Ltd., and caused the “scopical signboards escape certificate No. 3-4 of the Rabical 3-4 of the Rabal, damage to the side water of the Rabal, and neutical brupted light”.

The Plaintiff received medical care until April 22, 2012 for the above injury and disease, and received a judgment of class 10 of the disability grade after the completion of medical care.

On July 15, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an additional application for medical care for injury and disease with the Defendant on the following grounds: “The 3-4 Mackin No. 3-4 of the Raculation” (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”); and the Defendant approved this.

On August 6, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional medical care on the grounds that continuous medical treatment of the instant injury and disease is needed.

On October 1, 2013, the Defendant rendered a non-approval disposition for additional medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as needing medical care any longer.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the purport of the whole pleading as to the disposition of this case as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to the plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case is confirmed through the examination of B Hospital that the symptoms such as the plaintiff's appearance, sense, abnormal sense, and decline in the calendar are worse even after the completion of the medical care. In severe cases, the plaintiff's request for re-treatment of this case should be revoked by unlawful means, even though it falls under the requirements for re-treatment under the law.

The plaintiff's medical opinion shows the plaintiff's opinion that the MRI examination conducted by the plaintiff's main hospital (C hospital) will need continuous preservation treatment, considering the opinion that the RI examination conducted by the plaintiff's main hospital (C hospital) will need to be conducted. The plaintiff of the B hospital needs to observe the D medical center's check box, watch, and walking disorder.