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 March 23, 2014, the Plaintiff was employed as an employee of the additional police officer in the company, and was crashed at the installation of a scarcity at the site of the drain pipe, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, and was treated from March 25, 2014 with the Defendant’s approval of the medical care as “the part damage to the outer side part of the scarcity, the right side part of the scarlet (hereinafter “the instant case”)” by the Defendant.

B. On October 15, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for approval of the modification of the medical treatment plan to continue medical treatment with the damage of the human resources in charge of the right side from October 21, 2014 to January 12, 2015 as well as the subsequent injury to the human resources in charge of the right side and the subsequent injury thereto.

C. On October 22, 2014, the Defendant issued a revised medical plan approval to the effect that “it is reasonable to terminate medical treatment after receiving medical treatment until October 31, 2014” to the effect that the symptoms of the instant injury and disease were already fixed and that it is reasonable to reduce the period of medical treatment (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Although the Plaintiff filed a request for review, the Plaintiff was dismissed on January 2015, and the Plaintiff filed a request for review, but was dismissed on April 2, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including additional number), Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s symptoms for the instant injury and disease were not fixed even after October 31, 2014, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition based on a different premise was unlawful.

3. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff that determined the legality of the instant disposition is insufficient to recognize that the symptoms of the instant injury and disease were not fixed even after October 31, 2014, and undergo continuous medical treatment. There is no other evidence to prove otherwise, and the Plaintiff asserts as additional injury and disease.