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 cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the parts to be filled or added below, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

At the fifth bottom of the judgment of the first instance, 9 e.g., 8 e., 6 e., 8 e., e., 5 e., e., from the bottom to the first instance court.

The following shall be added from 5 pages of the first instance judgment up to 10:

HF President of the Association (As of November 16, 2017): It is reasonable to determine that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as the pre-feasible wire expenses, and that the Plaintiff’s loss accompanied by the non-dasible water axis of the Plaintiff’s mine would be an over-brupted light due to brain damage.

It is judged that the neutism is caused by brain damage, and the neutism and the treatment accordingly are not related to the neutism of the neutism.

HH President of the Association (FEOO on October 16, 2018): It is confirmed that cerebral typhism and cerebral typhism are on the day of the accident, but it is not affected by cerebral typhism due to the absence of cerebral cerebral typhism.

Since urology is judged to have no relationship with the first approved urology, and the cause of urology is strongly suspected of brain urology if the cause of urology is caused by urology urology, because the location of urology is located adjacent to the urology of urology.

7 under the 5th bottom of the first instance judgment, the results of the commission of the evaluation of medical records, “The results of the commission of each of the diagnosis of medical records to the president of the H Association of this Court,” added “the results of the commission of each of the diagnosis

At the bottom of the 6th judgment of the first instance, the following is added:

7) On November 16, 2017, the medical record appraisal request letter submitted by the president of the H Association on the medical record appraisal request was presented based on the general drilling theory on the premise that the Plaintiff suffered brain damage caused by the instant disaster, on the premise that the urology medical specialists suffered brain damage. The reply sent on October 16, 2018 to the Plaintiff on the medical record appraisal request was brain damage through the Plaintiff’s CT and MRI images.