1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, and Eul evidence 1-8 and the whole purport of the pleadings:

On July 25, 1982, when the plaintiff was employed as a maintenance engineer for the national border, the plaintiff was under the influence of the driver's waiting room at around 12:30 on July 25, 1982, and the other worker was under the diagnosis of the plaintiff's bridge, and was under the diagnosis of the plaintiff's bridge, and was under the treatment of the plaintiff's clinic and the plaintiff's clinic. The plaintiff was under the treatment of the emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emer

B. However, as a result of treatment, the Plaintiff continued to perform pains on the right upper part and the slot pipe, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by the typosisral typosis on December 26, 1983 by both sides at the Goa University Uniform Hospital, and was subject to the examination by the same hospital on January 6, 1984, and was discharged on February 4, 1984 from the discharge on the right upper part and until the end of March 1984.

C. After that, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care with the Defendant on October 14, 1985. On June 3, 1992, the Plaintiff was approved by the Defendant on December 1, 1992 on the ground of the paralysis of the mission, which is a high-speed pipe, the right side of the Defendant, and received re-re-delivery of the human mission.

On December 3, 2002, the Plaintiff obtained approval of additional medical care from the Defendant on September 30, 2003 on the ground of the completion and paralysis of the mission, which is a high right pipe, to the right end, and again received re-re-delivery of the personal mission. On October 10, 2003, the Plaintiff filed an application for disability benefits to the Defendant.

E. Accordingly, on October 23, 2003, the Defendant: (a) although the Plaintiff’s right-hand bridge’s disability grade falls under class 7 of class 8, the Defendant issued a disposition to pay disability benefits site by citing the lapse of three years from the date of the completion of treatment; (b) the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking revocation of the above disposition to pay disability benefits site; (c) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s right to claim disability benefits has ceased to exist due to the statute of limitations, this Court Order 20