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 December 12, 2014, the Plaintiff suffered from occupational accidents falling from a shooting bridge (hereinafter “instant accidents”) while engaging in the construction of a tent work at the site of a new house construction project, and was given medical treatment from the said date to July 6, 2015 upon obtaining approval from the Defendant for the injury and disease of the “abstin of the upper part of the bridge” (hereinafter “abstin of the instant accidents”).

B. On February 18, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for additional medical care for “(i) the denial of abandonment of the original body required for the left-hand side, ② the additional injury to the left-hand hand tunnel, and the additional medical care.”

C. On May 4, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of additional medical care to the Plaintiff on the following grounds: “The result of the deliberation by the panel of advisory opinions on the Plaintiff’s application, it was submitted to the Plaintiff: (a) an additional injury to the Plaintiff to the effect that the Plaintiff submitted a review opinion that the additional medical care is not reasonable because there is no ground for the agreement on non-approval of the left-hand aggregate; and (b) there is no suspicion of the damage tunnel post-marization; or due to the lack of any unique opinion on

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On June 3, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for review against the instant disposition with the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request on August 26, 2016.

E. On September 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination on the instant disposition with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on December 14, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 8, 12 through 14, 17, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the additional injury or disease of this case is recognized as a proximate causal relation with the disaster of this case or the injury or disease of this case.

Therefore, the instant disposition that did not approve additional injury or disease and additional medical care should be revoked as illegal.

(b).