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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. From February 8, 2011 to June 16, 2011, the Plaintiff was performing the molding construction of reinforced concrete construction among reinforced concrete construction works (hereinafter “mining construction”) from a piracy construction (hereinafter “mining construction”) at the Yansan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Construction Site for New Buildings (hereinafter “instant site”).

B. On August 18, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that “The Plaintiff’s instant accident constituted a wound due to the instant accident” in the first instance court of the first instance on the following grounds: (a) “The Plaintiff was subject to the three story production around April 13:10, 201 at the instant site, and that the Plaintiff was faced with vadying, vadying, vadying from stairs (hereinafter “instant accident”); and (b) the first instance court of the first instance alleged that the instant accident constituted a wound due to the instant accident, but the Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident constituted a wound due to the instant accident without clearly observing the opinion of MRI or the diameter, and thus, there is no relevance to the instant accident.

“Around August 16, 2013, upon replying to the result of the medical record appraisal, withdrawn the above assertion from the legal brief as seen above. Therefore, as it appears that there was no proximate causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s left upper pelle fever and the instant accident, this court ought to determine only whether the Plaintiff’s left upper pelle fever was caused by the instant accident.” The court filed a medical care benefit application with the assertion that “The medical record was diagnosed.”

C. In the course of investigating the background, etc. of the instant accident, the Defendant was working on April 22, 201 through the output log prepared to receive personnel expenses from mining construction.