1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 17, 1997, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a disaster (hereinafter “the disaster in this case”) where a person is in need of a landing, etc. at the pipe construction site at the construction site of the brick mountain construction (hereinafter “the first wound in this case”), and was diagnosed as “the brain-proof ground, satis, satis, satis, satis, satis, satis, etc. (hereinafter “the first wound in this case”), and obtained medical care approval from the Defendant around that time.

(2) The Plaintiff received medical care from November 18, 1997 to November 30, 1998 as the first injury and disease of this case. From October 29, 1999 to February 29, 2004, the Plaintiff re-treatmentd the first injury and injury. In this case, the Plaintiff was approved as additional injury and injury, and the second re-treatment was conducted from March 9, 2004 to April 30, 207 from September 21, 2009 to April 21, 2010.

B. On September 25, 2009, the Plaintiff obtained approval as an additional injury or disease, and then filed a claim for temporary disability compensation benefits during the period of additional medical care. On September 30, 2009, the Defendant rendered a decision with respect to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff has no wage subject to the average wage at the time of additional medical care,” pursuant to Article 56 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”) and Article 52 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, on the ground that “the Plaintiff has no wage subject to the average wage at the time of additional medical care,” the minimum wage amount is the daily amount of temporary disability compensation benefits (hereinafter “instant first disposition”).

(2) On January 19, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care with the Defendant as an additional injury and disease, and on March 4, 2010, the Defendant denied medical care on the ground that “the above injury and disease did not have grounds for recognizing the medical causal relationship with the disaster of this case” (hereinafter “instant Disposition 2”).