1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the dismissal of some of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance and addition of some of the following, and thus, it is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the same part, the Court of First Instance 9 and 10 (10) decided on the third side of the first instance trial, "the donation of a protoma cell was made" shall be deemed to be "the registration was made for the donation of a protoma cell."

Part 6 of the judgment of the first instance court is the "DNA".

Under the 6th Table of the judgment of the first instance court, the "each fact-finding results on the Seoul Asan Hospital and the Air Force B combat Flight Group" is the results of each fact-finding on the Seoul Asan Hospital, the Air Force Education Center, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Long-Term Transplant Center."

The 7th part of the judgment of the first instance court is that " was donated to a proteuk cell" in the 7th part of the judgment of the first instance, and " was registered for the donation of proteuk cell."

The following contents shall be added under the sixth Schedule of the Judgment of the first instance:

h) (h) The doctor D of the occupational and environmental department of the Den University Hospital responded to the purport that “the Plaintiff was not at least five months from exposure to (gire) but there was no disease or exposure before, and there was a possibility that at least seven point 7.35 times from WT 1 pm higher than that of the WT 1 pm higher than that of the Ministry of Employment and Labor of the Republic of Korea, which is the standard of the Ministry of Employment and Labor of the Republic of Korea, might have been exposed in a short time, and that the disease was likely to have occurred as a result of an occupational and environmental exposure.” The following is added to the lower part of the seventh 19th judgment of the first instance

The defendant asserts that even if the plaintiff was exposed to benent and caused the injury or disease of this case, it would be due to the negligence of the plaintiff who did not wear protective gear.

However, even if the Plaintiff’s negligence was partly involved in the outbreak of the instant injury, the Plaintiff’s performance of duties is limited.