beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. The grounds that the plaintiff appealed in the judgment of the court of first instance and asserted in the trial do not differ significantly from the contents of the plaintiff's assertion in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance are reviewed together with the plaintiff's assertion, the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the plaintiff's claim is justified.
Therefore, the reasoning of this court concerning this case is as follows, except for the 6th page 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance and the addition as follows, and thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The plaintiff asserts that the work character and the work environment immediately before the deceased's death were carried out, that is, the deceased was at a work site at an outdoor temperature at the time of the deceased's age of 63 years, and even if the deceased was treated with high blood pressure, the deceased was put into the outdoor work site at the time of the business owner without proper health measures and health problems prevention measures on the part of the deceased, and performed high physical labor. In light of the purport of Eul evidence No. 1, the plaintiff argued that the deceased cannot be in a relationship with the deceased's death on the basis of only the work hours immediately before the deceased's immediately preceding work hours. However, according to the purport of Eul evidence No. 1, while considering the above, the deceased's statement and change theory, he was found to have been flicked to the E emergency hospital, and died during the process of performing emergency treatment at the time of the deceased's age of 63 years old, the deceased's private person directly in charge of the hospital was exposed to the deceased's disease on the day of this case's occurrence.
It is difficult to see it.
2. Thus, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate.