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 February 21, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was an employee belonging to the Nonparty Company EM Design (the Nonparty Company hereinafter in the following following) and that it was caused a fall accident during the process of dismantling the cryst office, and filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant on October 7, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant on the ground that the application for the “satisf escape certificate No. 3-4,” the “satisfe escape certificate No. 4-5,” the “satisfe-one,” the “satisfe-one,” the “satisfe-one,” and the “satisfe-one” (the foregoing four diseases are each of the instant applications for medical care benefits in the following following).

B. On November 17, 2014, the Defendant: (a) among the soldiers on each of the instant applications, the “protruding escape card No. 5-cheon 1” was confirmed to be a clinical disease in a video; and (b) acknowledged the causal relationship with the Plaintiff in light of the disaster circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff; (c) approved it; and (d) issued a disposition not to approve the “protruding escape certificate of a protruding signboard No. 3-4” and “protruding escape certificate” as to the “protruding escape certificate of a protruding signboard No. 4-5” on a video, as such, did not clearly show any injury and disease; and (d) issued a disposition not to approve it (the next disposition

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion continued to work at the construction site for a period of not less than 30 years, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that it was caused by an accident falling below 2m from the Do for the removal of the Macro house on February 21, 2014. The Plaintiff’s assertion deepened the pain of the Macro house. The instant disposition was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff’s Macrop escape certificate was confirmed between 3-4 and 4-5, even though the Macrop escape certificate was confirmed in accordance with the Macio-Macro screen taken from the Macro-Macro,

B. (1) The Plaintiff had been engaged in construction-related labor since July 2004. From November 1, 2013, the Plaintiff joined the company and worked for the non-party company. The weight during the Plaintiff’s work.