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 January 16, 2018, when the Plaintiff was employed as a worker affiliated with B, the Plaintiff was involved in the pipeline restoration work on the first floor of the building of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and was subject to an accident that was going beyond the water control (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. Thereafter, the Plaintiff asserted that, due to the instant accident, the instant accident caused each of the injury to the power lines in front of the left corners, ② the right knee per half-monthly, ③ the right knee perne perle damage, ④ the defe perle perle perle, ⑤ the defe perle perle perle perle, ⑤ the defe perle perle perle peru, ⑤ the Defendant applied for medical care benefits for each of the instant injury and disease (hereinafter “each of the instant injury and disease”), on February 23, 2018.

C. However, on March 12, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision to grant medical treatment (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the basis of the Defendant’s medical opinion, etc. as follows: (a) on March 12, 2018, based on the Plaintiff’s medical advice, “The medical records and photographs of the disease were damaged, but there was no evidence of acute damage; (b) the disease was determined to be a disease of the patient; (c) the disease was confirmed, but is not acute but acute changes; (d) the disease was maintained in the MRI’s continuity of crypt; and (e) the injury was appropriate for the crypt, not for the be confirmed in MRI; and (d) the injury was not approved by the Plaintiff’s application for medical care benefits of each of the instant disease; and (d) the Plaintiff did not change the name of the disease on the left side, kneeel kne, knene, knene, and tyke.”

After that, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review against the instant disposition, but the petition for review was dismissed on June 20, 2018, and the petition for review was filed again, but the petition for review was dismissed on December 7, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 14 through 16, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The case.