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 September 15, 2015, the Plaintiff received medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act for the following reasons: (a) around 07:56, the Plaintiff was in the process of infant care at the Seongbuk-gu Healthy Family Support Center of Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and was involved in the accident where the Plaintiff running away from the running of the instant accident (hereinafter “instant accident”); and (b) until May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff received medical care benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “instant approved injury”).

B. On May 23, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional injury and disease with respect to “the side of the side of the saloids, other than the side of the salone.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant additional injury and disease”). C.

On June 16, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition not to approve the said application to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the outcome of the completion of the cross-surgical sarnium on the outside side does not appear to the right side, and the proximate causal relation cannot be recognized after the diagnosis has elapsed for a considerable period from the

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). . [Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap's 1 through 3, 8, Eul's 1, 3 through 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff continued to provide pains even six months after the instant accident, and was diagnosed by the Gyeongbuk University Hospital. Since the instant additional wound is deemed to have a proximate causal relation with the instant accident, the instant disposition was unlawful.

B. In full view of the facts acknowledged as Gap's evidence Nos. 1 to 3, 6, 8, and Eul's evidence Nos. 4 to 7, and the results of this Court's physical commission to the director of a character university hospital and the purport of the whole pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) Details of the instant additional injury and disease were examined on April 6, 2016 by the K-Eray Inspection at the Gannam University Hospital and the GRI Inspection at the same hospital on April 20, 2016, and the JI Medical Doctor (Seoul National University Hospital).