1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant corporation are dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's defendants expanded in the trial room.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding or adding some contents as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Supplementary Decision” No. 20 of the judgment of the first instance court No. 3, 20 of the judgment of the first instance court is added as follows.

Defendant Jinjin asserts to the effect that there is no proximate causal relationship between the instant accident and the Plaintiff’s CRPS.

In light of the following circumstances and the overall purport of the aforementioned evidence, it is reasonable to determine a proximate causal relationship between the accident in this case and the Plaintiff’s CRPS, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had received treatment on the left-hand side prior to the accident in this case; (b) however, the Plaintiff complained of the left-hand side, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., the Plaintiff’s medical treatment before and after the accident in this case; (c) the Plaintiff’s medical treatment details after the accident in this case; and (d) the distance between the date of the accident in this case and the

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Defendant Jin-jin asserts to the effect that, even if the labor contract relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant Jin-jin is recognized, the Plaintiff renounced the right to claim damages related to the instant accident against Defendant Jin-jin or exempted Defendant Jin-jin from the liability to compensate for damages.

However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff received the CTR diagnosis after October 18, 2012, which was the time of waiver or exemption of Defendant Jin-jin’s assertion, the Plaintiff is subject to the CTR diagnosis, etc., the written evidence Nos. 2 and 17 and the witness D of the first instance trial.