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 July 23, 2011, the Plaintiff, as an employee of the Gangnam Construction Corporation, was performing the construction work of 1040rd floor scam scam scaming at the site of the construction work of the construction work of the new construction work of the new construction work of the new construction work of the new construction work of the new construction work of the new construction of the new construction work of the new construction of the 1040th floor on the ground of Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoyang-si, Yangyang-si, and was diagnosed as “each scam scam scam image” with the contents inside the machinery scam and caused an accident suitable for the right-hand eye while the contents inside the machinery scam scambling, and approved the medical care on September 27, 2011 and approved the medical care on August 22, 2011. After the completion of the medical grade of class 10, the Plaintiff was determined to receive medical treatment.

B. On March 20, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional medical care due to aggravation of symptoms with the Defendant. However, on April 20, 2012, the Defendant rendered non-approval of additional medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s current state of injury and disease does not meet the requirements for additional medical care according to the medical opinion of the Defendant’s advisory opinion that it is reasonable to apply for additional medical care when a special operation plan is possible to the Plaintiff and needs to be completed.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination and reexamination. On September 20, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for examination, and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee rendered a ruling to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on December 21, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. While the Plaintiff’s assertion completed medical care for each of the instant images of the instant leaptables that the Plaintiff suffered from the instant disaster, the Plaintiff had already occurred in each of the instant leaptables, ties, decrisonation, and pains in the leaptables. On August 6, 2013, the Plaintiff received each of the instant leleap transplantation at the front stage of each of the leap transplant for the treatment, and accordingly was rejected response thereto.