1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 21, 2003, the plaintiff (1956 student) was involved in a traffic accident on the way to return from a business trip while working on the Geum River Medal Co., Ltd.

(hereinafter “the instant disaster.” On January 26, 2004, the Plaintiff was subject to nuclear removal and psychotropic expansion for conical signboards between the 5th and 1,00. On April 16, 2004, the Plaintiff was subject to medical care on October 31, 2007.

The Plaintiff applied for the approval of the medical care for the instant accident. The Defendant approved the medical care for the instant accident, such as the 5th century-1000 square meters, the cage escape card, the cage cage fage, the cage fage fage, the cage fage fage, the high-quality fage fage, the high-quality fage fump, and the high-quality fump cage fump escape card, etc., but was not approved for the 4-5 p

B. On March 26, 2012, the Plaintiff had a place of business in a single-product factory, Inc., Ltd., in the workplace.

The Plaintiff’s right development part was caused by a traffic accident (hereinafter referred to as “additional accident”).

C. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with the c-4 metropulation between the 3-4 metropic meta, etc. at Yong-Namnam Hospital, etc. on June 26, 2013, and received the 3-4 metropic vertebronism from B Hospital on the 3-4 metropic meta, and the extension of the 3-4-5 metropic 1,000

On August 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for additional medical care and additional injury and injury and disease approval to the effect that “The instant injury and disease occurred, and need to be fixed in spine bb (g)” due to the instant accident.

(See Evidence B No. 1). On August 22, 2013, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the instant injury and disease appears to have changed of happiness unrelated to the instant accident, and there is no proximate causal relation with the instant accident, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s additional medical care and additional injury and disease were not approved.

(See Evidence No. 6-1, 2).