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. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion and reason for appeal cited in the judgment of the court of first instance and the court of first instance, a thorough examination of the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the court of appeal, and the proximate causal relation between the duties of the superior branch of this case is not recognized, and therefore, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance that the instant disposition is not unlawful is justified

Therefore, this court's reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed or part of the grounds is added, and thus, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. On February 1, 2013, part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which has been written or added, " February 11, 2013" has been put into effect on " February 1, 2013."

On September 1, 2017, the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "as located in Seosan D around September 9, 2017," written in the second part of the judgment of the court of second instance, "the plaintiff shall be done at the site of oil tank cleaning work located in Seosan-si D around September 11, 2017."

In the last part of the second part of the second part of the judgment of the first instance, “the injury and disease of this case” is added.

On the third side of the first instance judgment, the "09.00-06.00" in the second 20th 19:0 shall be applied to "09.00-18:00.

On the fourth page of the first instance judgment, the term "time work hours" in the first instance judgment shall be changed to "time work hours (22:00~06:00)".

No. 9-11 of the first instance judgment shall be dismissed as follows.

According to the attached Table 2, the average work hours of the Plaintiff’s work hours of 44 hours and 38 minutes, 48 hours and 43 minutes, and 12 weeks prior to the occurrence of the instant injury and disease are about 50 hours and 32 minutes (the Plaintiff is acknowledged as having attended the “safety conference prior to work” on August 31, 2017 according to the result of the fact-finding on the 1st instance court’s branch office of the Korea National Oil Corporation, so the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have worked on August 31, 2017, and accordingly, the daily work hours should be additionally reflected. However, the Plaintiff’s mobile records and records are asserted to the effect that the daily work hours should be additionally reflected.