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 is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the part added or used after adding it as follows. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) The court of first instance, which rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion, is justifiable in its findings of fact and its determination, even if all the evidence submitted by the court of first instance and this court are examined, the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in this court are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the Plaintiff in the court of first instance.

A. Following the evidence listed in the fourth and third instances of the first instance judgment, “the result of the commission of the examination of medical records to the director of the C Hospital of this Court” is added.

B. Six (6) of the judgment of the court of first instance and seven (7) and eight (8) shall be followed as follows.

With regard to the request of this court for the appraisal of medical records, “the plaintiff seems to have undergone an operation due to the outbreak of cerebral ties caused by serious brain ties,” and “the plaintiff cannot be presumed to have contributed to the high blood pressure or cerebral ties, as the cause of cerebral rapy, although there is no overwork or stress, it may cause high blood pressure or stress, so it can be presumed to be one of many causes. Therefore, if the plaintiff falls under the case of Overwork in accordance with the standards of a professional medical professional in occupational environment, it may be deemed that the part of the case was contributed to the cerebral rapy, and if it does not fall under the case of Overwork, it shall be deemed to have been the natural outbreak of cerebral rapy.” However, as seen earlier, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have suffered a considerable burden on the plaintiff immediately before the occurrence of the disease in this case, or a sudden and difficult change in the working environment, and the plaintiff's body cannot be deemed to have been excessively borne (the plaintiff's body after the closing of argument.