1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of this case is as follows, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the conjunctive claim of the plaintiff, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

1. The Plaintiff asserted that, if the instant injury and disease did not meet the requirements for additional medical care, the instant injury and disease constitutes an additional injury and disease, and thus, the Defendant should approve the medical care for the additional injury and disease.

2. Determination: (a) Additional medical care under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is not different from the initial medical care for a injury or disease, except that the additional injury or disease was not discovered in the case of a injury or disease caused by the occupational accident; or (b) medical care is provided in the case of a new disease caused by the occupational accident; and (c) in the case of the above additional injury or disease, there is a proximate causal relation between the first injury or disease and the additional medical care in addition to the requirements for medical care in addition to the first injury or disease.

In this case, it is evident that the additional injury and disease alleged by the plaintiff falls under the above two cases, and the above circumstances are the above, even if the defendant approved the medical care for the plaintiff's original injury and disease, this was made according to the court's recommendation without clearly showing the causal relationship between the plaintiff's work and the original injury and the plaintiff's work. Thus, it was clearly revealed that the causal relationship between the original injury and the plaintiff's work was also clarified.