1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s first medical care 1) On April 15, 1997, while working at Mro General Construction Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff was a fall accident at the construction site (hereinafter “the first accident”).

(3) The lower court determined as follows: (a) the Defendants 1 and 2 were aware of the fact that the Defendants 1 and 3 were aware of the fact that the Defendants 1 and 1 were aware of the fact that the Defendants 1 and 2 were aware of the fact that the Defendants 1 and

(2) On May 29, 1997, the Plaintiff received medical care benefits for the first existing injury and disease of this case until November 30, 2002, and was judged as Grade 11 of the disability grade.

3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was subject to a traffic accident even around May 31, 2003 (hereinafter “instant second disaster”).

3) The left-hand spawal spawal spawal spawal spawal spawal (hereinafter “instant 2”).

(B) On February 7, 2005, the Plaintiff received medical care benefits by obtaining approval from the Defendant for occupational accidents, and received medical care benefits until October 28, 2004. (B) The Plaintiff asserted that each existing injury or disease of the instant case caused by each of the instant accidents has re-exploited or deteriorated, and filed an application for additional medical care on March 7, 2012, by asserting that there is no proximate causal relation with each of the instant accidents. However, on March 20, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition of non-approval for additional medical care on the ground that the injury or disease for which the application for additional medical care was filed was changed due to the absence of proximate causal relation with each of the instant accidents.

2) After that, on April 4, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for additional medical care by applying for re-treatment on the basis of the first half of the right chain. However, on May 3, 2013, the Plaintiff received a disposition of non-approval of additional medical care for the same reason from the Defendant. 3) Moreover, on May 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional medical care by again applying for re-treatment on the half of the slot pipes. However, on May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff received a disposition of non-approval of additional medical care from the Defendant for the same reason.

4 The plaintiff was re-treatmentd on May 3, 2013 and May 31, 2013 by the defendant.