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 April 11, 2010, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “Article 11’s pressure frame” (hereinafter “instant injury”) due to the crashed accident while dismantling a retaining wall concrete installed at a construction site located in the Southern Navy B, and was under medical care from April 11, 201 to September 30, 201 with the Defendant’s approval for medical care.

On April 27, 2010, the Plaintiff received respectively “vertecopic crymology” at the Sejong Hospital, “vertebrate removal and crypary crypology” at the Human University Seoul Hospital on January 20, 2011, and “vertecopic crypary cryption” on February 10, 201.

B. On September 30, 201, the Plaintiff submitted a medical treatment plan to the Defendant and filed an application for extension of the period of medical care from September 5, 2011 to March 4, 2012. Accordingly, the Defendant decided that “from September 5, 2011 to January 31, 201, the period of medical care should be terminated after the medical treatment” around October 20, 201.

C. Upon the expiration of the period of medical care approved by the Defendant, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a medical treatment plan stating that “as the Plaintiff was in a state of not forming the bones (comprehion) between 10 and 12 after performing an operation after chest 11, it is necessary to receive outpatient treatment, such as medication, from January 1, 2012 to December 30, 2012.”

Accordingly, on February 3, 2012, the Defendant rejected an application for approval of the above medical treatment plan on the ground that “it is reasonable to terminate medical treatment after medical treatment until January 31, 2012, because the symptoms of the instant injury or disease have been fixed.”

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(ii) [Ground of recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 (each entry, including numbers, and the purport of the whole pleadings,

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s chest stroke of the Plaintiff’s assertion was not consistent, and the Plaintiff’s additional hospital is due to the restriction on pain and move.