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 August 31, 2010, the Plaintiff became a member of the Co., Ltd. and worked as the owner of the C Apartment Management Office. On October 8, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant, upon obtaining the medical care approval from the Defendant on October 11, 2013, for the medical care benefits of KRW 14:0 from September 19, 2013 to September 23, 2013, for the replacement, relocation, and relocation of a bridge on the ground of the resident’s demand in the above apartment parking lot, and caused an accident of falling under the sloping while sloping. Accordingly, the Plaintiff received the diagnosis on the left side of the sloping, half-month fever, the left side sloping, and the medical care benefits from September 23, 2013 to April 208, 207; and received the medical care benefits from the Defendant on September 23, 2013 to April 28, 2017

B. On October 15, 2014, the Defendant revoked the decision of approval for the above medical care on the ground that the Plaintiff was found to have fabricated the disaster situation in order to obtain insurance benefits, as a result of the investigation conducted by the Seoul Western Police Station, and on the other hand, issued a decision of determination on collection (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was paid the aforementioned medical care benefits amounting to KRW 4,740,810, temporary disability compensation benefits, KRW 7,258,650 by making a false statement on the grounds that the Plaintiff was paid illegally and unlawfully (4,740, KRW 810, KRW 7,258,650) x 2).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Defendant. On March 31, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for examination.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On September 9, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) during the process of replacing the said apartment building with LED before the above apartment parking lot LED, the Plaintiff was subject to an accident where the Plaintiff was on the part of getting injured while working for a bridge up to the wind of the bridge; and (b) accordingly, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as the instant injury.

Therefore, the Plaintiff.