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 court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts written by the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On the third page 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the appeal shall be filled with a witness of the court of first instance as “a witness of the court of first instance.”

In the fifth judgment of the first instance court, the first instance court's "this court" shall be added to "the first instance court".

The 5th of the first instance judgment, the 21th to 6th of the 6th of the 5th of the 1st instance judgment, shall be followed as follows.

③ Although the Plaintiff appears to have suffered a certain degree of stress due to a verbal dispute with the Field Director on the day immediately before the day when the present symptoms occurred, it appears that the Plaintiff was not unilaterally charged, but also the Plaintiff raised an objection to the job demand of the Field Director, etc., and the time was not only one minute, and the medical record appraisal by the first instance court, namely, the following medical opinions: “If the present symptoms have occurred during the instant dispute, it may be viewed that it is difficult to view that the instant symptoms have contributed much to the outbreak of brain dynamics, but it is difficult to view that a dispute with the end of the day immediately before the day has contributed much to the outbreak of brain dynamics; on the day when the symptoms of this case occurred, the Plaintiff was subject to a mass liability due to work problems, etc.

In light of the fact that there is no evidence to prove that there was a dispute or dispute, and the Plaintiff was skilled craftsmen who worked at the plant construction site for about 28 years, and the company of this case was employed from the beginning as a day-to-day worker and was decided to work only until February 2017, the company of this case. In light of the fact that the dispute between the above 1 minute is about the same, and the dispute between the above 1 minute in attached Table 34(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

1.(a)

1 The work of subsection 1 is the case.