1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

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 cases: therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the

2. The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as "by no later than October 30, 2013") shall be written "by no later than November 14, 2013" in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

In the third top top of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "missent calculation formula" in the aggregate column of monthly insurance premiums shall be applied "624,807".

The "29,860" in the "29,860" in the "16-month insurance premium column of the 16-month judgment of the court of first instance shall be 25,000, and the "664,930" in the "660,070" in the "660,070" shall be applied.

No. 6.5 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall read "by November 14, 2014" as "by November 14, 2013."

The 6th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 6th 10th 10th 62,670 won shall be applied.

It is difficult to believe that the 8th judgment of the court of first instance is "live, typ, and trust" in the 6-11th judgment.

" by cutting and cutting as follows:

“The result of the examination of medical records (Evidence A No. 41) against the Defendant submitted by the Plaintiff is that the advice unilaterally selected by the Plaintiff was based only on the data produced by the Plaintiff, and it is difficult to believe that it is difficult to secure objectivity and fairness. Furthermore, the result of the examination of the Korea Medical Association of the Political Parties with the aim of “Although the period of hospitalization of the Defendant is excessive in light of ordinary circumstances, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant’s hospitalization period is excessive or unnecessary in light of the Defendant’s specific condition or degree of pain.” Thus, the result of the said examination entrustment alone is difficult to find that there is no proximate causal relationship between the Defendant’s long-term hospitalization or the disease or injury.”

3. If so, the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion with the trial court.