beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception of the dismissal of some contents, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article
Parts used for cutting shall be subject to the following cutting of the 2nd to 3rd 6 pages:
A. On December 9, 1987, the Plaintiff was a student B, who was employed in the Central High-Speed Daegu Office Co., Ltd. and was in charge of C business. On November 20, 1991, the Plaintiff “Iskin base”, “Iskin base”, “Iskin base, Iskin-Iskin base” (hereinafter “approval injury and disease”).
Upon the diagnosis of the Defendant, the medical treatment was provided after receiving the approval of the first medical care from the Defendant from November 21, 1991 to December 11, 201 of the same year with the approval from the above injury and disease from December 1, 2003 to May 30, 2005, and with the approval of the additional medical care from April 22, 2008 to November 30, 2009. (b) The Plaintiff was under the said medical care period after receiving the re-treatment. The Plaintiff was under the operation of the re-treatment and the re-treatment of the re-treatment (including the vertecinary cate and vertebrate) on June 7, 2008 during the said medical care period.
C. On November 8, 2010, the Plaintiff applied for additional injury and additional medical care to the Defendant on the ground that there is no medical proximate causal relation between the situation of the first disaster and the approved injury and the approved injury on November 20, 2010.
On May 20, 2015, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as Maule’s U. S. S. S. E. S. E. S. D. D.’s movable property hospital (hereinafter “the instant application”), and applied for additional injury and disease as the injury and disease to which the application was filed. However, on June 15, 2015, the Defendant issued a non-approval disposition on the ground that there was no causal relation between the applicant injury and disease on the grounds that there was no causal relation between the previous approval branch on June 15, 2015.
Part IV 10 to 5.