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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the instant case, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following is added after the 9th of the judgment of the court of first instance, since Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are as follows.

(2) In addition, the court of first instance that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was re-examineed by the evidence submitted in the first instance trial, the content alleged by the Plaintiff is not significantly different from the content alleged by the Plaintiff in the first instance trial, and even if the evidence submitted in the first instance trial is re-examineed, the judgment of the court of first instance that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable. [Supplementary part] As to this, the Plaintiff’s medical records asserted to the effect that it should be viewed differently from the general medical records under the

However, under the Medical Service Act, the term “medical examination and treatment” means, regardless of the name thereof, recording and signing of a doctor, dentist, herb doctor, or herb doctor in charge of diagnosis and treatment in detail (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do413, Sept. 8, 2006). Article 14(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Medical Service Act provides “personal information of a person who has received a medical treatment, main symptoms, diagnosis results or diagnosis name, treatment progress, contents of treatment, date and time of medical treatment, etc.” As a matter to be recorded in the medical examination and treatment, the above medical examination and treatment is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff, who is a doctor, falls under the medical examination and treatment under the Medical Service Act because the Plaintiff’s name, main lake and marsh content, viral Sn value, main symptoms, and condition of the patient. In light of the aforementioned purport of the preparation of the medical examination and treatment, it cannot be readily concluded that

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.