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 August 18, 2014, the Plaintiff, as an employee of the Taeyang Technology Group of the Taeyang Technology Group of the Co., Ltd., on March 20, 2014, was driving a vehicle on March 20, 2014 at the 09:0 Taesung-dong, Taesung-dong, Taesung-dong, Daegu-ro (Ugu, Daegu-dong, Dong-dong) (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff shocks the said vehicle on the road boundary ch

(B) No. 4-5 of the 1st century (hereinafter referred to as “application award”)

(i) the first medical care benefit application was filed with the content thereof.

B. On September 1, 2014, the Defendant cannot be deemed as an occupational accident because the instant accident cannot be deemed to have been under the business owner’s control and management as an accident during his/her work to and from work. The filing of an application is a opinion by RoI image taken on February 5, 2014, which was before the instant accident, and there is no relevant medical record after the instant accident. As a result of the Defendant’s request for advisory opinion, it is difficult to view that the filing of an application has a serious causal relationship with the instant accident as the result of the Defendant’s request for advisory opinion, and thus, the first non-approval disposition on medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”). For the reasons indicated in the instant case,

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, and was dismissed by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on June 9, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The instant accident occurred when the business owner paid fuel cost, vehicle repair cost, and other expenses, using a vehicle owned by the Plaintiff, to work as a company of the Taeyang Technology Group in Daegu, starting from around 05:40 on March 20, 2014 to work at around 05:40 on the behalf of the Plaintiff, and thus, it is an accident during commuting by means of transportation controlled by the business owner.

B. The plaintiff presented the opinion that the doctor needs an operational treatment through MRI video, etc., and the defendant's advisory doctor also requires an operational preservation measure. Thus, the plaintiff provided medical treatment after the accident of this case, and the applicant's objection is general.