1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff received medical care benefits by being approved of the injury or disease by “the body of the head of the uus pelus and institution, the body of the head of the institute, the body of the head of the institute, the body of the blood pelus, the body of the family members, the body of the family members, the body of the family members, the body of the family members, the body of the family members, the body of the family members, the body of the family members, the body of the family members, the body of the family members, the body of the family members, the body of the family members, the body of the family members, the body of the family members, the body of the family members, and the body of the family members, the body members

B. On June 20, 2013, the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service (Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service) submitted to the Defendant a treatment plan stating, “The Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a treatment plan stating, “Pharmacologic treatment, physical therapy, etc. for the period from July 1, 2013 to September 14, 2013, for the following reasons: (a) the Plaintiff has a disorder in walking and daily action at home; (b) the Plaintiff has a strong chronological pain and salt symptoms; (c) fladying symptoms; and (d) fladying symptoms, such as pharmacologic treatment and physical therapy, due to the continued symptoms, such as a chronic c

C. On June 25, 2013, the Defendant rendered a non-approval disposition of the medical treatment plan (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “it is reasonable to terminate the medical treatment by June 30, 2013 in a fixed state with the symptoms.”

On July 2, 2013, the National Computerization Hospital issued to the Plaintiff a disability diagnosis statement stating "whether it becomes worse or possible to repeat within the short period (up to six months)," and on July 2, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted an application for disability benefits to the Defendant along with a disability diagnosis statement issued by the National Computerization Hospital.

E. On July 9, 2013, the Defendant rendered a judgment of class 1 subparagraph 8 applicable mutatis mutandis to the Plaintiff on the ground that “term of validity” under Article 77 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”) was “the term of validity: From July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015; preventive management evidence: Elimination of merger, etc., with the following purport:

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 8-1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1 to 4, Eul evidence 5-4, Eul evidence 7-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. This.