1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On June 4, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval for medical care rendered to the Plaintiff is revoked.

3...

1. The grounds for this part of the disposition are the same as the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The reasoning for this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the same as the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

B. A) After the occurrence of the instant accident, the Plaintiff continued to use kneeee (hereinafter “kneeeeeee”) and knee-free type after the occurrence of the instant accident at the company’s freezing warehouse, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as X-ray test on March 25, 2015, and was diagnosed as knee-free type, and knee-free type, and knee-knee-free type by the above hospital.

B) Even after taking medicine, the Plaintiff was diagnosed on April 6, 2015, that the Plaintiff was undergoing Lachmannn’s test and pre-explosion test. The Plaintiff was diagnosed on April 17, 2015 to be suspected of being knee full-time-time-time-time-based-defesceptation with the same case at the above B hospital. The film department at the above B hospital was confirmed as the result of the Plaintiff’s MRI test on knee-path, and was conducted at the above B hospital’s film department in question, with the possibility that e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e.

2. Before the instant accident occurred.