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 November 9, 2005, while working as an employee belonging to the Dong-gu General Social Welfare Center, the Plaintiff was faced with an accident that she was frighted to collect and move laddying from the stairs, and exceeded the amount of vade from the stairs (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. In the instant accident, the Plaintiff received medical care until February 28, 2006 due to the injury of “abruption of the upper right and the right side of the upper right, abrush of the left right side, abrupt of the upper right side, damage to the blood-related tissue.”

(hereinafter referred to as “approval wound” is the sacrife of the fright of the upper right and the upper right of the upper right.

On November 25, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional medical care with the Defendant by applying for the Maternity Card for the Maternity Card (hereinafter “Maternity Card”). However, on December 8, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision not to accept the application for additional medical care on the ground that there was no causal link between the approved injury and the additional medical care injury, and the additional medical care injury and disease did not cause any causal relationship with the instant accident due to the chronic disease. D.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for re-determination with respect to the decision to grant the above additional medical care. On February 2015, the Defendant revoked the decision to grant the above additional medical care on the ground that there is sufficient possibility that the additional medical care injury and disease are related to the steel products caused by the instant accident, and thus, the proximate causal relation with the instant accident or the approved injury and the granting branch is reasonable.

E. On March 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant after finishing the medical care due to additional medical care. However, on June 3, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits on the ground that the Plaintiff’s failure to meet the disability grade standards under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act was verified on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s failure to accept the said application for disability benefits was found to fall short of the disability grade standards under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 4-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The case.