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 December 2, 2013, while serving as a production worker in Sskin Co., Ltd. on December 2, 2013, the Plaintiff suffered from the injury of “influent sorging sorgings and sorgings” by suffering from an accident that is cut off from the work room in the company on December 16, 2013 (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. On the grounds of the above injury and disease, the Plaintiff received medical care from the Defendant on December 27, 2013 and received the approval of the medical care from the Defendant on July 22, 2014, and applied to the Seoul National University Hospital that did not change the status, and was admitted to the Seoul National University Hospital on March 3, 2014, and on September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff “the left-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-uncepted-Oratty certificate” is deemed to be the injury and disease of this case.

Upon diagnosis, on January 17, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for approval of additional injury or disease to the instant injury or disease.

C. However, on March 21, 2014, the Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s status fell short of the standard of diagnosis on the ground that only four items among 11 items for recognizing the Plaintiff’s status fall under the instant injury and disease, the Defendant’s disposition not to approve the Plaintiff’s application is “the instant disposition.”

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there was no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 (each entry, including each number, and the purport of the whole pleadings)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion continues to receive the diagnosis of the instant injury and disease at the Seoul Special Hospital since the instant accident sustained severe pains on the left-hand side, and is currently receiving medical treatment for the said injury and disease.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff applied for medical care for the injury and disease of this case to the Defendant, but the Defendant did not approve the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that the Plaintiff’s status falls short of the criteria for recognition of injury and disease of this case by using the standard for examination of the fifth Board of the United States Private Association (AMA) which is old, not the latest standard for diagnosis established by the World Medical Association (IASP).

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not recognize the injury or disease of this case by a wrong diagnosis method is unlawful.

(b) medical treatment;