1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On January 12, 2012, the Plaintiff was affected by a disaster that was dissatisfed from a sloping bridge at a height of 2 meters on January 12, 2012, and the Plaintiff obtained approval for the first place of pressure, and completed the medical care on July 28, 2012.

On January 8, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-treatment with the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) pain treatment for “Adravating frame No. 1”, “Adembdones No. 4-5”, and “Schronology No. 3-4, 8-9, 10-11-12”, and, if necessary, an application for re-treatment as a prospective opinion to implement inverte type 1.

On January 21, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision not to accept an application for additional medical care against the Plaintiff on the ground that “vertecopty febrate and yellow ebrate ebrate is an existing disease unrelated to a disaster, and the pressure ebrates are not aggravated, and X-ray instabilitys are not infebrates, and it is not feasible to apply for additional medical care.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is in need of hospitalization and surgical treatment as it continues due to a continuous injury and injury and injury to the first injury and disease even after the first injury and disease, and as such, it is necessary to ensure that the Plaintiff was unable to properly move out and live a daily life. This is obvious that the instant disposition was made due to aggravation of the first injury and disease, and thus, is unlawful.

B. Article 51(1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that “Where there is a medical opinion that a person who received medical care benefits under Article 40 suffers from a recurrence of an occupational injury or disease, which was the subject of the medical care after the cure, or where there exists a medical opinion that active treatment of such occupational injury or disease becomes more worse than at the time of cure, he/she may receive medical care benefits under Article 40 again (hereinafter “additional medical care”).” Article 51(2) provides that “necessary matters concerning the requirements, procedures,

This refers to this.