1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the following is added to not more than 7, 9, 7, 9, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part determined additionally in the following paragraphs; and (b) the same applies to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

f) The opinion of this court on the physical examination [the result of this court's fact-finding on the result of this court's request for physical examination and the result of physical examination] satisfies the criteria for the diagnosis of "Ex Post Facto Mad-10" in F07.2 for the classification of ICD-10.

The concept of a mental disorder that is most close to the concept of an ICD-10 is F06 ‘Miseth damage and functional part, and other mental disorders caused by physical diseases' as classified by ICD-10.

While an appraisal is conducted with respect to the plaintiff during the appraisal period, the brain-electronic salutism, brain-salutism, brain-salutism, visual oil generation level test, etc., it is not possible to diagnose the mental disorder after trauma due to the lack of any specific damage or functional part of the brain, which can prove specific damage or functional part of the brain.

According to the thesis published in the Korean Association of Medical Doctors, the Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternals are classified as the state of Maternal Maternal mental disorders.

The plaintiff is judged to be unable to meet the diagnosis criteria for trauma stress disorder.

Although a certificate of depression can be diagnosed against the plaintiff, in the case of depression, the causal relationship with the second accident cannot be determined because the changes in the psychological condition caused by the second accident of this case and the biological and social factors are combinedly affected.

According to the results of the court's physical appraisal, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's injury or disease constitutes a optical mental disorder, which is a proximate causal relation with the first and second accidents in this case.

However, in the above circumstances, the ICD-10 mental disorders that the Court determined that this Court’s physical appraisal satisfies the diagnosis criteria.