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.

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination

A. 1 Medical Opinions) 1 Medical Opinions and Opinions as of December 6, 2014, - Injury and disease categories of the sick and wounded: The baseline and tensions: The Plaintiff complained of the crypary base due to the crypinal base during the work process, the cryp and the tensions of the need for additional treatment. The Plaintiff diagnosed under the above name as C, provided the cryping treatment, and added treatment.

B) CBT and CWO - Medical certificate of December 15, 2014 - Symmetric (final diagnosis): TWO 4-5 TWO - TWO 4-5 TWO - TWO - TWO - The plaintiff, who has received treatment from the plaintiff under the above name C, with no merger certificate or non-explication certificate, needs three dymal stability rates from December 1, 2014 to preserve for the treatment of pharmacologic treatment, physical therapy, etc.: Provided, That the unexplication certificate is based upon the hymosis; c) D Hospital as of April 28, 2015 - Symalpha: The need to be accompanied by the pathic disease certificate and other conjectal disability, the cymoid and tension of the hym, the tension, and the tension in the future: The plaintiff shall not pass the treatment opinion and the hymosis to the patient's address outside the original address.

On December 8, 2014, the opinion from September 2, 2015, 2015, which confirmed the escape certificate of No. 4-5 of the Round MDR on the Round of Tagwon (MRI on December 8, 2014) - Byung: Byung's escape certificate No. 4-5 of the Nacheon-ro Hospital: The plaintiff appears to have protruding off the disc on December 1, 2014 with the upper left of No. 4-5 of the MademI on December 8, 2014, but in the MRI on August 20, 2015, it would be unreasonable to view that there is no causal relation between the MRI's opinion on December 8, 2014 and the accident.