1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of this court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following additional parts, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. In addition, the Defendant asserts that school safety accidents should be subject to H’s disability determination criteria, and accordingly, the disability suffered by the Plaintiff A due to the instant accident does not fall under class 7 of class 2 of Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act (15% of the remaining person, labor disability loss rate), and the degree of class 14 (5% of the labor disability loss rate).

However, in light of the legislative intent of the School Safety Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the rate of loss of labor ability of Plaintiff A is reasonable to determine the number of persons in accordance with the standards prescribed by the School Safety Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and there is no special circumstance to exclude the school safety Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and to apply the H disability determination standards to the beneficiaries, in order to resolve the equity problem caused by the difference in the compensation limit for school safety accidents, and to ensure that the deduction benefits are paid promptly and accurately to the beneficiaries, so that school members may participate in educational activities in a prompt and accurate manner.

Furthermore, according to the result of the court's entrustment of appraisal by the court of first instance and the result of the court's entrustment of appraisal by this court, Plaintiff A may recognize the facts falling under class 7 of Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act, "if it is necessary to install a fixed gear in ordinary labor but it is necessary to do so in a very serious exercise, although it is not required to install a fixed gear" due to the disability suffered by the accident in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.