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 April 6, 2004, while working as the main source at the Yan Energy Branch Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff completed the medical care on May 31, 2007 after obtaining the approval of the medical care for the first approved injury and disease of the brain-dead, plespathy, upathy, and cerebrovascular (hereinafter “the first approved injury and disease”) due to the occupational accident of assaulting robbery (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

B. On September 6, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional medical care and an application for additional medical care with respect to editing (hereinafter “additional injury”) with the Defendant, and with respect to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant disposition”), the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of all of the applications on November 4, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for review to the Defendant, but was dismissed on April 19, 2013, even though the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee filed a request for reexamination.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Even after the completion of the treatment for the first approved injury and disease, the Plaintiff asserted that the symptoms of the injury and disease applying for additional medical care continue to exist, and thus, the first approved injury and disease and the treatment process were determined, resulting in an additional injury and disease applying for additional medical care.

Therefore, the injury or disease applied for additional medical care falls under the requirements for additional medical care, and the injury or disease applied for additional medical care falls under the requirements for additional medical care, and the disposition of this case which was not approved by all of them should be revoked illegally.

B. (1) - The Plaintiff’s mental health symptoms at the time of diagnosis on September 5, 2012 are as follows: (a) - the Plaintiff’s mental health department symptoms, such as double pains, fall in the concentration of care, unstables, uneasiness, decentralization, and duplicity related to the instant case; and (b) stimulated and duplicity arising therefrom.