1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s non-approval disposition against the Plaintiff on May 9, 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 26, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) completed defect repair work at a bood warehouse of an advanced agricultural branch located in Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun; and (b) completed the defect repair work; and (c) went to the port from 5 to 6 meters high to the left (hereinafter “instant accident”); and (d) obtained approval for medical treatment from the Defendant against Non-damage, damage to the left side, damage to the left side, the left-hand brodverization bood, the left-hand bood, the upper-hand bood bood, the upper-hand bood, the brud bood, the upper-hand side bood, and the fladratory bood, and obtained approval for medical treatment from the Defendant

B. On April 24, 2013, the Plaintiff was receiving medical care for the first injury or disease, and applied for an additional medical care plan, stating that “The Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of and an operation for hospitalization with the Defendant on April 26, 2013, on the following grounds: “The Plaintiff, due to the instant accident, has been diagnosed additionally by the fact that the Plaintiff was suffering from the semi-monthly complex heat on the left-hand slots, the complete heat on the left-hand slots, the left-hand slots, the left-hand slots, and the base-hands salt and tension (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant additional injury”).

C. On May 9, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition to approve the Plaintiff’s application for approval of the additional injury and to approve it by changing the period of application for the hospitalization plan (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff complained of symptoms as to the additional injury and disease in this case after the lapse of three months from the date of the accident, and there was no clinical opinion as to the additional injury and disease in this case at the time of the examination and treatment of the first injury and disease, and it was revealed that there was no clinical opinion as to the additional injury and disease in radiation, and it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relation between the accident and the additional injury and the accident in this case.”