The defendant.

In addition to the addition of the “judgment on the Defendant’s assertion,” the part of the judgment of the first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is that the plaintiff's body was cut off with other passengers at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at this case, and there was no serious shock or credit to the extent that the pressure of the plaintiff was caused to the plaintiff. The medical certificate of Dental branch on May 11, 2014 also stated that the plaintiff's injury was " simple chronite and tension" and the defendant's response to the defendant's advice (Evidence No. 1 and Eul No. 3-1) and the fact inquiry result of the Korean Medical Association at the court at the first instance trial, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's pressure was cut off to the plaintiff without direct physical shock at the time of the accident at this case at this time at this time, and there was no causation between the accident at this case and the plaintiff's injury, even if there was a causal relation between the plaintiff's injury and the accident at this case's medical clinic at this case at this time.

On May 11, 2014, the date following the occurrence of the instant accident, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “infection base and tension,” and was taken by MI at Daejeon Veterans Hospital on May 14, 2014, and was found to have a spine ebrates. From May 15, 2014.