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

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

The reasoning for this court is that the court's reasoning for this case is as follows: each of the 7th and 8th of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: each of the 3th of the 8th of the 8th of the 8th of the 8th of the 196th of the 8th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 196th of the 206th of the 1

The conclusion of the judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, which is to the extent that “other than adding two,” and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

The Plaintiff asserts that, even if the main cause of the deceased’s death is the high blood pressure, etc., which is an existing disease, a proximate causal relationship between official duties and death should be acknowledged, on the ground that the rapid temperature change, which the deceased experienced, rapidly aggravated, i.e., the progress of high blood pressure, etc., which is an existing disease, should be acknowledged, while the deceased’s main cause of death was carried out with the head of the Doll-J, and return to the office with a hot amount of time, which was exposed to the Flue D's death.

However, it can be recognized by considering the overall purport of the facts and evidence presented in the first instance court.