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 court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following, thereby citing this case in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, the part in the judgment of the court of first instance added "A No. 3-1 and No. 4-1, and the fact-finding results with respect to B hospital of this court" to the evidence of the first instance judgment No. 3-8.

The following shall be added to the fourth and sixth pages of the first instance judgment:

C) The Plaintiff received physical examination at B Hospital on April 15, 2019. The result of the rehabilitation field examination shows no apparent symptoms of both sides, and there was no opinion that they do not seem to have any fluority of both sides as a result of the Doarology examination (MT), and there was no opinion that they would be abnormal on both sides. At the time of the above physical examination, the Plaintiff complained of the fluority of each bridge upon receiving the fluority examination, and the physical examination is more severe than the symptoms of the right side, and even if the fluority examination was conducted on the left side, it is highly probable that the Plaintiff might have a normal fluority, even if the fluority examination was conducted on the left side, it appears that the Plaintiff did not perform the above 10-day medical examination on the fluorical area and the surrounding area beyond the left side, taking into account the fact that the fluorine examination was an inspector who frequently caused severe pain.

The details of surgery and treatment referred to the physical appraisal;