1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 6, 2015, while working as a fare collector for an expressway tol, managed by C, the Plaintiff was caused by an accident that: (a) on the part of the vehicle traveling on the Tolpt on March 6, 2015, the Plaintiff collected a thing away from the vehicle traveling on the Tolpt; and (b) was caused by the vehicle driving on the 71km road at a speed of 71km per hour.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

On June 15, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained approval from the Defendant for medical care benefits regarding the vertebral bones (1-8, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e.,

C. On September 17, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained approval from the Defendant for medical care benefits regarding “F09 Emotional mental disorders” as an additional injury resulting from the instant accident.

On February 16, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the approval of the medical care benefits “F028 Already Dementia” as an additional injury or disease caused by the instant accident. On March 22, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition to refuse to grant additional injury or disease on the ground that the following content was “an advisory doctor’s opinion”.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). ① The following facts are found: (a) the recognition function low-level of a dementia was insufficient for the dementia diagnosis standard, and the continuous period of recognition function symptoms is short; (b) the objective result of the objective inspection is less related to the addition, and the name is determined as included in the approved injury; and (c) the impact of the decrease in recognition function is determined not to constitute dementia; and (b) the impact of the decrease in concentration of the state of low recognition function which appears at the present time should be considered; (c) there is no dispute over the future progress; (d) evidence No. 8, Eul evidence No. 1-4, Eul evidence No. 2-4, Eul evidence No. 3-4, Eul evidence No. 5-4, Eul evidence No. 5-4, the purport of the whole

2. The plaintiff's assertion continues to exist after the accident of this case, i.e., an appraisal adjustment disorder, mental behavior symptoms of f028.