1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 28, 2002, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the instant accident that was crashed at the construction site and fell (hereinafter “the instant accident”) and was diagnosed as “the alleys of the upper end frame, the scopical base, the scopical base, the scopical base, the right-hand bottom, and the scopical signboard escape certificate (hereinafter “existing wound”). From around that time to April 30, 2006, the Plaintiff received treatment under the Defendant’s first medical care benefit approval.

B. After completion of treatment, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff’s physical disability remains, and the disability grade falls under class 7 of class 1 through class 14 as stipulated in Article 42(2) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8373, Apr. 11, 2007) and paid disability benefits to the Plaintiff on May 10, 2006.

C. On February 13, 2012, at the hospital B, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as the “Ex Post Facto Disease Control Group” (hereinafter “Ex Post Facto Disease”), and on March 28, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted the relevance between the instant accident and the instant injury and filed an additional application for the instant injury and injury to the Defendant, and filed an application for additional medical care as to the instant injury and injury to the police station No. 5-6, and the instant injury and disease. However, on April 2, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition not to grant each application on the ground that “the instant injury and disease cannot be deemed to have been related to the instant accident, and the previous diagnosis cannot be deemed to have been aggravated or aggravated.”

On June 26, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the non-approval of the additional medical care (Seoul Administrative Court 2012Gudan14760). The Defendant approved the instant injury and disease as an additional injury and injury to the Defendant on August 20, 2013 when the first instance court was pending, but maintained the disposition of non-approval of the additional medical care. Ultimately, on October 22, 2014, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the non-approval of the additional injury and injury and injury.