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 grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate even if the evidence presented by the plaintiff was presented to the court of first instance.

Therefore, this court's reasoning is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for a partial dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this court's reasoning is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or supplementary parts] 1-A of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

The "Masung-gun" of paragraph 1 shall be raised to "Masung-gun".

Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance, part 5 of the contents of the 6th letter of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be subject to the reduction of "Veb" into "Leb".

Part 6 of the judgment of the first instance shall add "the result of commissioning the delivery of documents to the group of vessels with the first instance court" to the 5th and 6th [based grounds for recognition] attached to the list.

Nos. 10 to 17 of the first instance judgment shall be followed as follows.

[3] In the evidence supporting the plaintiff's assertion that the accident of this case occurred in G outside the F site, the statements in the industrial accident inspector of this case and the L/C statement (Evidence A No. 13) of July 13, 2020 submitted by the plaintiff to this court and the witness E of the first instance trial (part of the disaster of this case) are proved.

However, the disaster in this case consistently testified in the court of first instance to the effect that “the location where the accident in this case occurred is F-site or G-site with the knowledge of U.S.’s location or G site,” and the plaintiff’s agent’s “this case’s agent has a domicile in this case’s industrial accident guard document, and the witness is not aware of his/her address.” The plaintiff’s agent had a different address in the first instance. When preparing the industrial accident inspector’s report, the disaster in this case’s address is so heavy that the address might have been changed.

“The answer was made.”

In addition, "A judge of the first instance court" and several persons have taken the same place on the date of the accident.

"...."