1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s first medical care 1) On April 15, 1997, while working at Mro General Construction Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff was crashed at the construction site on April 15, 1997 (hereinafter “the first accident”).

(3) The lower court determined as follows: (a) the lower court erred by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by misapprehending the legal principles of free evaluation of evidence; and (b) the lower court’s determination as to whether there was a violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by exceeding

(2) On May 29, 1997, the Plaintiff obtained approval from the Defendant for an occupational accident, and received medical care benefits for the existing injury and disease of this case until November 30, 2002, and received the determination of class 11 of the disability grade.

3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was subject to a traffic accident even around May 31, 2003 (hereinafter “instant second disaster”).

3) The left-hand spawal spawal spawal spawal spawal spawal (hereinafter “instant 2”).

(2) On March 7, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional medical care and the Defendant’s non-approval disposition 1) filed an application for additional medical care on the ground that each of the existing injury and disease of this case caused by each of the instant disasters has re-exploited or deteriorated due to the occupational accident by obtaining approval from the Defendant on February 25, 2005. However, on March 20, 2012, the Plaintiff received non-approval of additional medical care on the ground that there was no proximate causal relation with each of the instant accidents as a change in the state of departure.

2) After that, on April 4, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional medical care by re-aggravating thirs on the right chains. However, on May 3, 2013, the Plaintiff received a non-approval of additional medical care from the Defendant for the same reason. 3) Moreover, on May 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional medical care by re-aggravating stals in the half of the sludges. However, on May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff received a non-approval of additional medical care from the Defendant for the same reason.

4 The plaintiff is against the defendant's disposition of non-approval of additional medical care dated May 3, 2013 and May 31, 2013.