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 April 27, 2015, the Plaintiff was serving in Company B, and was injured by a traffic accident that conflicts with a passenger car running in a toilet in the rest area while getting on and on a company bus for education of officers and employees supervised by the company (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. The Plaintiff received medical care from the Defendant by June 30, 2015 after obtaining approval from the Defendant as an occupational accident, such as “the fluoral scale formation of the fluoral scale at the fluoral scale at the fluoral scale at the fluoral scale” (hereinafter “the fluoral scale at the fluoral scale”). On February 11, 2016, the Plaintiff additionally diagnosed “the fluoral scale at the fluoral scale at the fluoral scale at the fluoral scale” (hereinafter “the instant fluoral”). On August 16

C. However, on October 26, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition to approve additional medical care and additional injury and disease (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the instant injury and disease had no proximate causal relation with the injury and the injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury.”

The plaintiff is dissatisfied with this and filed a request for examination and a request for reexamination, but all of them were dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that there was no medical treatment or surgery on the right side before the disaster of this case. The plaintiff received a wide range of shocks from the right side due to the accident of this case, and the "the formation of an external wound species on the right side" suffered from the disaster of this case and caused the disease of this case only for seven months and more. The plaintiff is a non-smoking, and the plaintiff did not have any risk factors related to the outbreak of the disease of this case since he did not drinking almost after the accident of this case. In light of the fact that the disease of this case was caused by the accident of this case or the disease of this case.