1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as follows: (a) the reasons why the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the instant case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part Nos. 6, 5, and 7 among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence

2. Article 16(1) and attached Table 2 (hereinafter “attached Table 2”) of the Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act in light of the opinions of similar statutes and the Defendant’s advisory opinions, etc.

Recognizing that “the person who has an obstacle to the function of one Section during the three sections of a bridge” as prescribed in subparagraph 7 of class 12 does not constitute “the remaining person.”

However, the following circumstances, which are considered comprehensively considering the evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 10 of the evidence Nos. 4-1, the results of the first instance court’s physical examination commission and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, Article 37(1) of the School Safety Act provides that disability benefits shall be paid when a person under mutual aid has a disability even after the completion of medical treatment. Article 12 subparag. 7 of the attached Table 2 provides that “if a person under mutual aid has a disability after the completion of medical treatment,” the loss rate of labor force of “the remaining person under one part of the third part of one bridge” shall be 15%. The School Safety Act does not separately provide for the criteria for recognition of disability based on slot East Eastdo in the School Safety Act. ② The doctor of the Yongsan-do Hospital Hospital of the Plaintiff, which diagnosed the Plaintiff, determined that “the above appraisal results of the Plaintiff’s physical disability x-ray examination results of the Plaintiff’s 2,000 m of the first part of the judgment.”