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.

Two under the fourth bottom of the judgment of the first instance shall be made by cutting two as follows.

1) The Plaintiff’s details of the instant additional medical treatment related to the instant additional medical treatment added the following details from 5th to 4th below the 5th judgment of the first instance court. 2) The Plaintiff’s medical opinion in the examination of the medical treatment record (Korean National University Hospital) during the period from August 1, 2005 to 1 May 2006 was the treatment for maintaining the state of symptoms rather than the active treatment period due to the preservation of physical treatment, drugs, etc.

Whether it is possible to find employment is a very complicated issue, and fundamentally, it cannot be determined with only the patient's name and related images, without directly viewing the patient at that time.

The plaintiff seems to be generally unable to find a job if he/she had to find out the neck continuously from August 1, 2005 to April 2, 2006.

From the 5th bottom of the judgment of the first instance to 4th "this Court", a "the first instance court and the second instance court" shall be added, and under 3th "the results of the appraisal commission" shall be added to "the results of the appraisal commission" and "the results of the inquiry."

At the bottom of the 6th judgment of the first instance, eight "not" shall be followed as follows:

In addition, the following is added to the medical record appraisal that the Plaintiff’s performance during the instant period appears to be a preserved treatment to maintain the state of evidence, and that the appraisal of the medical record appears to be a preserved treatment to maintain the state of evidence, following the end of the 6th judgment of the first instance.

The fact that the appraisal of medical records shows that “if the plaintiff was to examine and find out the neck during the instant period, it would have been generally impossible to find a job,” but this is alleged by the plaintiff.