1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic facts and circumstances of dispositions

A. On October 7, 2013, the Plaintiff received medical treatment by “E Hospital” as “at least kneeee, knee, knee, snee, side kne, and side knee structure.”

(A) Evidence No. 13 3). (b)

On June 11, 2015, the Plaintiff received treatment after being diagnosed as “C Jeong-man’s knee fever” and “scare knee knee knee knee knee knee kne kne kne kne kne kne kne.” (Evidence 6). (c) On June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by “E Hospital” as “Fe kne knee knee knee knee kne, complex damage (e.g., half-year, scar, side kne, side kne kne, and side kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne,” and the medical record was diagnosed as “a kne kne kne kne kne kne ke kne,” and considered as “a kne kne

(A) Evidence 8

D. On August 11, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits to the Defendant with the content of the accident “as of June 5, 2015, around 14:00” with the date of the accident “as of June 5, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for the medical care benefits with the Defendant by making it difficult for the Plaintiff to knee, knee, knee, knee, going to the instant construction materials (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s assertion”), with the content of the accident as “as of June 5, 2015, at an I new construction site located in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, the second floor to manage and supervise the site from the second floor to the first floor.”

E. On September 3, 2015, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for medical care benefits on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship with the Plaintiff’s assertion as the Plaintiff’s injury or disease was judged to be satched.”

A No. 12, hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(f) The Plaintiff filed a request for review with respect to the instant disposition, but was dismissed on January 11, 2016, and was dismissed on June 9, 2016, although the Plaintiff filed a request for review, it was dismissed on June 9, 2016. (No dispute over grounds for recognition exists.)