1. On December 14, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of additional injury or disease approval against the Plaintiff on December 14, 2017 pertaining to damage to the right-hand part of the region.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 11, 2016, at the construction site, the Plaintiff received medical treatment after obtaining approval of the injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury and injury

B. On November 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional injury to the Defendant on the right-to- right-to- right-to- right-to- right-to- right-to- right-to- right-to- right-to- right-to- right-to- right-to- right-to- right-to- right-to- right-to- right-to-hand injury (hereinafter “the instant case’s dental injury”). Around that time, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional injury to the Defendant, as well as to the distribution and loss of dental appliances, remaining spawn, complete spathy, and spawn of dental appliances (

C. On December 29, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of additional injury to each of the instant hazards on the ground that “In light of the results of deliberation by the society of advisory and foreign affairs, it is difficult to recognize additional injury as a result of the lack of root caused by negotition damage and any defect caused by negotisis from nephical damage,” on the ground that it does not meet the criteria for recognition of additional injury.

On the other hand, on February 2, 2017, the Defendant approved a sugar with no two open wife as an additional injury and disease, and issued a disposition of non-approval of additional injury and disease on the ground that there is no ground to believe that the instant dental disease was affected by the absence of a different description from the first medical record, etc.

The Plaintiff asserted that all of the instant dental diseases were caused by the instant accident and filed a request for examination with the Defendant, but was dismissed on June 21, 2017, and accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on June 28, 2017, but was dismissed on August 10, 2017.

E. On December 12, 2017, the Plaintiff returned to the Plaintiff.