beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial at the trial while appealed from the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial at the court of first instance. Even in consideration of the evidence submitted at the court of first instance and the Plaintiff’s assertion in the court of first instance and the trial at the court of
Therefore, the reasoning for the judgment of the court concerning this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the grounds for the following judgment between the 7th and 16th of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, this is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
【Supplementary part】 On November 29, 201, the Plaintiff was killed and wounded in the valley in the middle of the 625 War.” The Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on the basis of “unexplic species, the right plehying plehosis,” and failed to achieve that purpose by losing the Supreme Court. On July 31, 2013, 201, the Plaintiff received training at the Daegu Occupational Complex on December 12, 1950, due to dust, soil, etc., and suffered from pulmonary infection in the middle of the 1951, by falling from the normal right side of the mix of the mix of the mix of the mix of the Taegu Mu Industrial Complex on May 20, 1951, causing damage to the head, marcule, pulmonary hume, pulmone hume and pulmone hne, pulmone hum, pulmone, etc.
[] The applicant filed an application for re-registration of a person of distinguished service to the State due to different applications. On November 29, 2011, the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to believe as it is, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s assertion was made in addition to “the brain damage and cerebral damage, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., double
2. Conclusion Plaintiff’s objection.