1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 23, 2004, the Plaintiff employed the Plaintiff’s affiliated company and the details of his work, who first worked as a street cleaners, and worked as a cleaning driver from April 26, 2006.

B. (i) On July 24, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care with the Defendant on the ground that (i) on December 17, 2009, the Plaintiff had been dead during the ordinary process of large-scale wastes (cor air conditioners).

B. On December 17, 2009, the Defendant approved the “satise base” among the soldiers on the motion, but did not approve the “satise escape certificate” of the “satise base”.

C. (i) On December 17, 2009, the Plaintiff provided medical care in accordance with the above disposition of medical care approval, and returned to the Yongsan Unemployment Co., Ltd. on January 2010 and served as a cleaning driver again.

B. On August 24, 2010, the Plaintiff was involved in the accident of collision with the vehicle in which she had driven a cleaning vehicle at around 05:30 on August 24, 2010 (hereinafter “instant accident”).

Fidelity: (a) On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for medical care (hereinafter “instant application”) to the Defendant while the instant accident occurred with “the escape certificate of the conical signboard between the fourth and fifth trends,” and “the five conical separation certificate” (hereinafter “instant injury”).

In the application form for the medical care submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the instant application, the term “disaster cause and occurrence situation” refers to “the instant accident was caused by disc heat diagnosis at B Hospital on August 25, 2010,” and the term “disaster assessment” refers to “accident caused by traffic accident.”

(v) With respect to the instant application, the Defendant, on March 29, 2013, did not approve the instant application on the ground that the instant injury and disease constituted an existing disease due to changes in the euthanasia, and thus, there is no substantial relation between the instant accident and the instant injury and disease.