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 May 6, 2010, the Plaintiff was a daily worker employed by the construction industry corporation, and at around 07:30 on May 6, 2010, the Plaintiff was subject to assault by East Korean medicine Workers C while performing the work of disposing of materials at the construction site of Hannam-si Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. On May 12, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care with the Defendant on the ground that “the first disposition of this case (hereinafter “the first disposition of this case”) was incurred due to the instant accident, i.e., brain-proof, sal., chloak, chloak, chloak, chloak, and chloak 8 on the right side,” and the Defendant applied for medical care on June 4, 2010 on the ground that “the instant first action of this case (hereinafter “the first disposition of this case”) was rendered by the Defendant on the ground that “the two parties stimulate each other’s appraisal beyond the scope of their duties beyond the scope of their duties, and there is no proximate causal relation with the performance of their duties”).”

C. On August 12, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the medical care non-approval disposition by Seoul Administrative Court 201Gudan2708, and was sentenced by the above court to revoke the first disposition of this case on the grounds that the accident of this case and the first injury and disease of this case have causations, and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time. Accordingly, the Defendant approved the Plaintiff’s medical care for the first injury and disease of this case on August 12, 2011.

On June 25, 2012, the Plaintiff additionally filed an application for additional injury and disease with the Defendant, i.e., “compicable mental disorder” (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”) due to the instant accident.

E. On July 26, 2012, the Defendant gave medical advice to the Plaintiff on July 26, 2012 that “The instant injury and disease is not recognized as a causal relationship with the first injury and disease of this case, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff suffered the instant injury and disease, taking account of the Plaintiff’s symptoms, and it is difficult to diagnose the injury and disease as the injury and disease of this case.”