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 June 11, 2015, the Plaintiff was an employee who was employed in Ginjin Co., Ltd., and was injured by salted so as to the right-hand finger, right-hand finger, a narrow scalkymitis, the right-hand finger, and so on (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

B. Upon obtaining approval for the medical treatment of the instant injury and disease from the Defendant, the Plaintiff received medical treatment from June 11, 2015. On November 9, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted a medical treatment plan extending the period of eight weeks from October 1, 2015 to November 25, 2015 for the reason that the medical treatment and physical treatment of the instant injury and disease are necessary, and obtained approval from the Defendant.

C. After that, on November 20, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted an additional medical treatment plan extending the period of three weeks from November 26, 2015 to December 16, 2015 (hereinafter “instant medical treatment plan”); however, on November 24, 2015, the Defendant rejected the instant medical treatment plan on the ground that “the instant medical treatment plan is appropriate to complete the treatment because the present symptoms are fixed.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Defendant against the instant disposition, but was dismissed. The Plaintiff filed a petition for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but was dismissed on March 31, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and 5 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. With respect to the Defendant’s assertion that the instant disposition was lawful on the grounds of the disposition and the relevant statutes, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition was unlawful on the grounds that the Plaintiff had been able to expect medical treatment effects through treatment at the time. Therefore, the symptoms of the instant injury and disease were not fixed, and accordingly, the instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise.