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 bottom of the third part of the judgment of the first instance, two "this court" shall be added to "the first instance court".

At the bottom of the third part of the judgment of the first instance, “the result of the appraisal commission” is added to “the result of the inquiry into D Hospital of this Court”.

The following shall be added to the statement of opinion that 4 pages of the first instance judgment is reasonable:

The following shall be added to the statement of the first instance judgment, 4th 12th "in the opinion" of the first instance judgment, which states that the brain damage caused by an accident is very low to the extent that it is difficult to confirm the brain damage in the recent self-defense video examination, and that the present appeal symptoms are related to the brain breeding rather than by the part that it should be confirmed due to brain damage.

⑤ Although the risk of medical treatment, such as the surgery, etc. related to the mawal, the main cause of the hospital was judged to be brain damage caused by the instant accident, it appears to be insufficient to have determined by taking into account the degree and side of the brain damage caused by the instant accident. Since it is difficult to expect the Plaintiff’s answer that the hospital, who performed the surgery for the mawal type surgery, would have a high possibility of being the cause of the relevant injury, it is difficult to adopt the above response as it is. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the said response as it is another hospital claiming that the Plaintiff suffered from the instant accident, and that there was no additional action seeking revocation of the disposition for the revocation of the additional approval of the Mawal type Masal type Masal (No. 2016Nu68467 of this Court).

2...