1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim (including the part extended from the trial) is dismissed.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 7, 201, the Plaintiff, working as B at the place of business of Defendant Daegu Motor Vehicle, was suffering from the injury that cut off near the left elbow because the Plaintiff, while moving to the place of tallying around September 7, 201, exceeded vadi, and the Plaintiff was suffering from the train qui, which was suffering from having been suffering as much as vain.

B. The Plaintiff received medical care benefits from September 7, 201 to August 10, 201 after obtaining approval for medical care due to occupational accidents from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, and thereafter received medical care benefits more once on November 28, 2012.

C. From September 8, 2011 to March 5, 2012, the Defendant handled the Plaintiff as an occupational sick person. From March 6, 2012 to April 30, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition of occupational leave (hereinafter “occupational leave”) pursuant to Article 44(2)1 of the Personnel Regulations of the Defendant, and each of the said occupational leave was extended from May 1, 2012 to July 10, 2012 and from July 11, 2012 to August 10, 2012.

Since then, the Plaintiff appears to be adequate to avoid any labor or activity that currently uses checks on the left-hand side due to the suspension of the front-hand part of the annual installments, the deficit of the organization, the left-hand check-up to the left-hand check-up. It is necessary to continue rehabilitation treatment and transitional observation in the future. The Plaintiff applied for the extension of the period of leave of absence to the Defendant along with his medical certificate on August 3, 2012, stating that the period of leave of absence is approximately twelve months: the Defendant issued a personnel order to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 44(1)1 of the Defendant’s Personnel Management Regulations (hereinafter “ordinary leave of absence”) from August 11, 2012 to August 10, 2013.

E. The Plaintiff followed the Plaintiff’s temporary retirement period, along with the written diagnosis of July 19, 2013, requires the extension of the period of temporary retirement to the Defendant, because it is difficult to extend the period of temporary retirement for 12 months, following the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the work using the arms with the thickness of the annual organization too short from the upper end of the cut end.