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 the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts, which are used for adding or deleting, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(Other, the grounds alleged by the Defendant in the appeal do not differ significantly from the contents alleged by the Defendant in the first instance court, and even if all of the evidence and materials submitted in the first instance court and in this court are examined, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected, and the fact-finding and decision of the first instance court, which is the acceptance of the Plaintiff’s request, are justifiable). 2. The part of the first instance court’s decision, which is cited, added, or deleted, “this court” and “the result of the court appraisal commission” of the third 15 pages (hereinafter “the result of the court appraisal commission”) is deleted.

Under the 3th sentence of the first instance judgment, "the result of the commission of the court appraisal" in the 2nd sentence is as follows: "the result of the commission of each medical record appraisal to the chief of the D Hospital in the first instance court and the result of the fact inquiry, the result of the commission of each medical record appraisal to the chief of the E Hospital in this court, and the result of the fact inquiry to the chief of the D Hospital in this court, the result of the fact inquiry about the chief of the D Hospital in this court

The following shall be added to the "as possible" of the fourth 10 to 11 of the judgment of the first instance.

“The Plaintiff inserted urology from September 2, 2014 to September 5, 2014, five days after the date of the instant accident, and the Plaintiff complained of urology on September 6, 2014, following the removal thereof. The Plaintiff complained of urology from September 10, 2014, five days after the date of the instant accident.

In addition, if there is a 'new damage' in relation to the fact-finding of the E Hospital, it would normally be reasonable that the urology immediately after the disaster occurred, but the urology appeared due to the delayedness after a certain period.