beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the plaintiff in the trial does not differ significantly from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the trial was examined again, the judgment of the court of first instance rejecting the plaintiff's claim is justified.
Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance in addition to the dismissal of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this court's explanation is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
C. Foods
(a)each “this Court” in the fourth, fourth, sixth, and 19, fifth, fifth, and sixth, shall be regarded as “first instance court”;
(b) in Part 5 of Part 5, the phrase “A 8, 9, and 2” shall read “A 5, 6, 8, 9, and Eul 2, 4, and 6.”
(c)Paragraphs 5, 16, and 17 of the fifth page “the low noise of the low strength is deemed to have existed as a substitute.”
The 5th page "the main work was conducted at the time of the suspension of the operation of machines" was "the operation of the machine was conducted at the time of the suspension of the operation of the machine, and the operation of the machine was conducted at the time of the suspension of the operation of the machine (the plaintiff alleged that theless room was more severe than the production CR, but it is not sufficient to recognize the above facts only by the written statement of the 85dB document (Evidence A17), and even based on the above argument, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff who worked in the 85dB or more regularly was exposed to noise)."
(e)each “noise intensity” of heading 5, 19 and 6 shall be deemed to read “Robbery noise”.
F. Paragraph 2 of Paragraph 6 is a special requisition, "," and the plaintiff's hearing ability was damaged from the 4,000 Hz to the highest limit on July 2016 by the E Hospital (Evidence 5).