1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the final records of the judgment subject to review.

A. On January 7, 2009, the Plaintiff, as an employee of the Chinese restaurant “B”, suffered injuries in the sprinkings and salt fields on both sides due to the occupational accidents that are going beyond Otoba and go on (hereinafter “instant accidents”), and provided medical care and re-medical care under the Defendant’s approval.

B. On June 8, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an additional injury and disease application with the Defendant regarding “the first additional injury and disease” (hereinafter “instant additional injury and disease”), but the Defendant did not approve it on June 25, 2010.

(hereinafter “instant No. 1 Disposition”). (c)

On June 16, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an additional injury and disease application against the Defendant regarding the “scarcitys unstable on the left side” (hereinafter “instant additional injury and disease”), but the Defendant was not granted approval on July 8, 201.

(hereinafter “instant Disposition 2”). D.

On February 1, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision that the Plaintiff’s disability grade due to the instant accident constitutes “a person who has a disability in the function of one Section among the three sections of the Han Bridge” under Article 53(1) [Attachment 6] of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, as prescribed by Article 53(1) [Attachment 6] of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance

(hereinafter “instant No. 3 Disposition”). (e)

On September 6, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with the Seoul Administrative Court seeking revocation of each of the instant dispositions as Seoul Administrative Court No. 2010-Ma19044, and the said court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against the instant disposition No. 1 on June 12, 2013, and rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim against the instant disposition Nos. 2 and 3.

F. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, respectively, filed an appeal with this Court No. 2013Nu25087. On June 17, 2014, this Court rendered a judgment dismissing both the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s appeal (hereinafter “the judgment on review”).

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with Supreme Court Decision 2014Du11731, but on March 2014.