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 May 7, 2001, the Plaintiff moved to the restaurant of the B federation by putting water in the national air and putting it out.

(2) On July 9, 2003, the Plaintiff received medical care from the Defendant on July 9, 2003 (hereinafter “the instant disaster”). The Plaintiff received medical care approval from the Defendant during the period from May 29, 2001 to September 30, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

B. On February 9, 2018, in relation to the instant disaster, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for approval as additional injury and injury in relation to the instant accident (hereinafter “instant injury and injury”). However, on March 21, 2018, the Defendant issued a non-approval disposition on the ground that “The first pressure frame for the first injury and injury caused by the death and injury caused by the death and injury caused by the death and injury caused by the death and injury caused by the death and injury caused by the death and injury caused by the death and injury caused by the death and injury caused by the death and injury caused by the death and injury caused by the death and injury caused by the death and injury caused by the death and injury caused by the death and injury caused by the death and injury caused by the death and injury caused by the death and injury caused by the death and injury.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap’s 1 through 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Prior to the Plaintiff’s assertion, there was no king evidence related to the instant injury branch prior to the instant accident. Since the instant accident, there was a serious pain on the instant injury and bridge. As such, the instant injury and disease occurred, or the symptoms of the pressure frame approved for the Plaintiff have deteriorated due to the instant disaster.

Therefore, even though the defendant should approve the injury and disease of this case as an additional injury and disease, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Facts of recognition 1) The name of the medical doctor on April 7, 2003 by the plaintiff doctor's opinion: the cronology, the first half pressure frame, the separation of spinal ebrates, and the escape certificate of conical signboards (fluences), and the escape certificate (fluences);