The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff (B) entered the C Mining Office on August 10, 1979 and was working for approximately 31 years and six months from D to the date of retirement on December 31, 2012. On November 26, 2017, the Plaintiff (B) was diagnosed as “a full-time fluencing and extreme fluencing and extreme fluencing, the right turning back to the right turning back” on November 26, 2017. On May 25, 2018, the Defendant received medical care from the Defendant for the said sick disease until August 31, 2019 with the approval of the medical care.

B. On April 1, 2019, the Plaintiff (i) diagnosed that “the c-4, 4-5 luxulations between the 3-5 luxs, the 3-4, and 4-5 luxsphersphersphersphersphersphersphersphersphersphersphersphersphersphersphersphersphersphers, both sides of the luxsphersphersphers, and (ii) applied for additional injury and disease to the Defendant.”

(c)

On May 27, 2019, the Defendant issued an additional measure for non-approval of the injury and disease (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “A soldier was not recognized as an injury and disease for which an application for non-approval was filed for the prosecution, and as a susnale’s opinion, it is not recognized as a causal relationship with the existing accident” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(d)

Although the Plaintiff filed a request for an examination against the Defendant, the Defendant’s motion on August 27, 2019 that “the progress of the transition of the sloping disease in accordance with the MIM’s opinion is similar to the degree of ordinary observation in the same age group, and that the work has particularly deteriorated beyond natural progress.”

The Plaintiff’s request for review was dismissed on the ground that it was not confirmed that there was no confirmation of opinions to view, and that it is difficult to recognize a considerable causal relationship between the applicant’s injury and the injury to the industry, given that the need for further review was observed only by a natural transitional change due to the increase in age, and that the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination against the Review Committee on Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance was dismissed on February 26, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Gap evidence No. 8-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion.