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. 제1심판결의 인용 이 법원이 이 사건에 관하여 설시할 이유는, 제1심 판결문 제4면의 “㈏ 추상장애 주장에 관한 판단” 부분을 아래와 같이 일부 고치는 외에는 제1심판결의 이유와 같으므로, 민사소송법 제420조 본문에 의하여 이를 그대로 인용한다.

The Plaintiff asserts that 15% of his/her ability to work permanently has been lost due to an anti-scopic disorder caused by an anti-scopic disorder. In the event of a scopic disorder caused by a tort, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have lost his/her ability to work as a scopic disorder only if the scopic disorder has considerably impact on future employment, occupation selection, promotion, possibility of change of occupation, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da105062, Jan. 13, 201). According to the inquiry of the fact-finding with regard to the head of the Ncopic Hospital affiliated with the Ncopic University, the Plaintiff remains more than 7 cm away on the left side of the Kcopic disorder, and this is recognized as having been 15% of his/her ability to work under the Enforcement Decree of the State Compensation Act. However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s rate of increase of his/her ability to work in advance scopic surgery and treatment.