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 July 1, 1990, the Plaintiff is an employee in charge of the manufacture of automobile parts, who is employed in Abandoned Automobile Co., Ltd. for business of manufacturing automobile parts.

B. From July 10, 2012 to July 17, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) during the process of using vibration slurgs in the company B’s factory in order to remove snow slurgs; (b) during the process of transferring burgs (weight approximately 30 km) on the 24th of the same month, there was a new burg pain; (c) on August 23, 2012, in the process of surging and treating surgs with surgs (seven m) in order to attract surgs to the right side surgs (gm).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disaster”). C.

Then, from August 24, 2012 to September 5, 2012, the Plaintiff received a diagnosis of “protruding signboard escape certificate between the third-4 main phase, the third-4 main phase, and the 5th phase-1,00 main phase-2,” and applied for medical care benefits to the Defendant on September 27, 2012.

Accordingly, on October 18, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition not to grant medical care on the ground that “the 3-4 conical signboard escape certificate and the 3-4 conical signboard escape certificate” was “it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with the duties of the applicant branch on the ground that the Defendant’s refusal to provide medical care is “it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with the duties of the applicant branch on the ground that the degree of progress is consistent with the MRI, the degree of progress is not serious, and it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with the duties of the relevant branch on the ground that it is determined as an individual disease caused by the ethical change,” and that “the 5th 5th - 100 square meters escape certificate.”

E. After December 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-medical care benefits for the foregoing disaster and injury and disease, and the Defendant on January 27, 2016.

The same disposition as the disposition stated in the subsection (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) was taken.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff.