1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 29, 2014, the Plaintiff, as a worker for day duty, was involved in a traffic accident while getting on and moving the van provided by a human resources presentation company to move to a construction site constructed by B company.

(hereinafter “instant accident.” After the instant accident, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits for the instant injury to the Defendant on the ground that the instant accident occurred due to the occurrence of “satise damage, satise damage, satisf, 2, 3, 4, and 12, satisfy, and 4-5, satisfy, 5-6, satisfying sat, satisfy, and satisfy,” but from the Defendant, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits for the said injury to the Defendant on the grounds that “satisfy damage, satisfy damage, sat, saturfy, 4, and 12, and 4-5, satisfy disks (hereinafter “instant injury”). From July 29, 2014 to January 26, 2015, and then closed the application for medical care.

B. On August 28, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision under class 15 of the disability grade (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes “persons whose labor service remains limited to a considerable degree, remaining in the function or mental function of the neurosis.”

C. On July 31, 2018, when the lawsuit of this case was pending, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for medical care benefits for the “patulation Nos. 5-6 of the Radalone, brain-dead, and acute cerebral Bribery,” which was not approved again, and on August 2, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of occupational injury and disease against the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, on November 15, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above disposition with the Seoul Administrative Court, and the Seoul Administrative Court partially accepted the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of only the “brain sugar” part of the above occupational injury approval disposition on the ground that “it is deemed that there is a proximate causal relationship between the instant accident and the brain-dead, but it is not enough to recognize the occurrence of the climatic body and the acute brain clisome, and that there is a lack to recognize the proximate causal relationship with the instant accident.”