1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who worked as a machinery repair source for about 34 years and five years from November 25, 1979 to May 15, 2014.

B. On August 29, 2014, the Plaintiff diagnosed “infection, salt, right-hand surgery,” and received medical care until March 31, 2016 after being recognized as an occupational disease.

C. On March 1, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed for a certificate of control over the left-hand side of the medical care, and applied for an additional injury or disease to the Defendant after a diagnosis of “satisfy and satchitis” (hereinafter “instant injury or disease”), but on April 25, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition not to accept the additional injury or disease on the ground that it is difficult to prove the relevance with the duties of the instant injury or disease.

On August 17, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the non-approval of the additional injury and disease described in the preceding paragraph (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2017Gudan51474), and the Defendant approved the instant injury and disease as additional injury and disease according to the above court's decision of recommendation for mediation.

E. As to the instant injury and disease, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for medical care benefits from March 16, 2016 to August 18, 2017 and temporary layoff benefits from April 1, 2016 to August 29, 2017.

F. On September 22, 2017, according to the result of deliberation by the advisory society, the Defendant paid only medical care benefits until May 9, 2016 and temporary disability compensation benefits from April 1, 2016 to May 9, 2016 as well as the remaining medical care benefits and temporary disability compensation benefits, respectively, (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant injury or disease was operated after conservation and treatment for a certain period of time due to the nature of the injury or disease, which is extremely difficult to cure natural progress.