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 October 1, 201, the Plaintiff was employed as a stock company B on October 1, 201, and was performing the duty of displaying and arranging goods at a large-scale large-scale large-scale large-scale mar store operated by the said company. On September 201, 201, the Plaintiff was suffering from occupational accidents, such as where: (a) repeatedly displayed heavy products on the beginning of the beginning on September 2013; and (b) there was a pain, such as the cost of left hand hand hand over; and (c) there was a pain to the right hand over

Since then, around December 2, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained the first medical care approval for the satchitis on both sides, and received the additional medical care approval for the satise of the satise and the satise of the satise of the satise and the satise of the satise of the satise.

B. On August 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for approval as additional injury and disease by the “CRPS” (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”). However, on September 13, 2017, the Defendant issued a non-approval on the ground that “the Plaintiff does not constitute additional injury and disease because it fails to meet the criteria for recognition of the instant injury and disease under the diagnosis slip on the instant injury and disease.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 14, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the symptoms of this case, such as pain, etc., have been aggravated even after the medical care was provided for both satchitis, right hand, and thirro-bat cirrosis, due to occupational accidents, and eventually, the injury and disease of this case have occurred.

Therefore, since the injury or disease of this case was caused by an occupational accident, the prior disposition of this case is unlawful on a different premise.

B. On December 10, 2015 and December 21, 2015, a doctor of C Hospital, who was the principal doctor of the Plaintiff, was the Plaintiff, written opinion and written diagnosis of the Plaintiff as the injury and disease of this case, and the doctor of D Hospital on March 30, 2016.