재요양 및 추가상병 불승인처분 취소청구의
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. The contents asserted by the Plaintiff following the judgment of the first instance court to this court are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court. However, in light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court, a thorough examination of the added evidence in this court, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of the evidence and arguments, the fact-finding and the judgment of the first instance court are acceptable.
The appraisal of medical records against the plaintiff is generally related to the number of nuclear escape symptoms on the adjacent part, depending on the patient's age, work, lapse time after the operation, and existence of disks prior to the fact inquiry reply conducted by the court. However, since there are many differences depending on the patient's age, work, lapse time after the operation, and existence of disks prior to the operation, accurate distinction between the previous operation and work relevance is difficult.
On the other hand, the advisory doctors of the defendant Corporation expressed the opinion that "the result of the escape from a multi-presidential signboard that is naturally occurring rather than the injury" should be judged as a naturally occurring sediment opinion, and it is reasonable to approve the additional injury, the opinion of the opinion of the opinion of the expansion of a sloping signboard that is retired between the 4-5 trends and the 6-7 trends, and the opinion of the opinion of the opinion of the defendant Corporation that there is no causal relationship between the application due to the natural progress of the sediment, and the above opinion of the opinion of the first instance court was stated that there is no special ground to view the plaintiff as being more severe than the age group in light of the age group of the plaintiff's MaRI in the medical record appraisal conducted by the first instance court, and there is no opinion of the opinion of the defendant Corporation.