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 October 23, 2016, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the instant accident” (hereinafter “instant accident”), “the salt coordinate and tension of the erode, the right side of the erode, and other parts of unknown details, such as the string of the upper right side, the string of the upper right side, the string of the erode, the string of the upper right side, the string of the erode, the string of the upper right side, the string of the upper half of the upper half of the erost, the string of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the erost, the erost signboard (No. 3-4,

B. On December 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with respect to the above injury and disease. On January 19, 2017, the Defendant: (a) granted to the Plaintiff only medical care for “the base and tension of drilling, the right-hand bridge, and other parts of unclear details, sponsing back to the right-hand side, sponsing back to the right-hand side, sponsing up to the right-hand side, sponsing up to the right-hand side; and (b) rendered a disposition of non-approval.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”), and the injury and disease without approval shall be the same as the injury and disease of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant injury and disease”).

The Plaintiff filed a petition for examination against the instant disposition. However, the Defendant dismissed the petition for examination on April 12, 2017 on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation with the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant injury and disease occurred due to the instant accident is unlawful in the instant disposition that recognized the non-approval of medical care.

B. In full view of the following facts, the following facts can be acknowledged in light of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 5 (including each number in the case where there are spot numbers) and the purport of the entire arguments in the examination of the medical record as to the head of Dong-dong University, University, Racing Hospital.

1. On December 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits, along with a written opinion of the hospital B, and the pertinent written opinion is indicated as the name of the diagnosis.