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 court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is written as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. Foods

A. 3-B of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1)(b) “The description of overtime work hours” referred to in paragraph (b) of the same Article means “The description of overtime work hours is written on Gap evidence 9, which deducts one hour for each work among overtime work hours (including night work, early out work, and day work) identified by the deceased on the basis of the starting time and closing time of work connected to the military overtime work management system, and adjusts the hours for recognition of overtime work hours calculated within a maximum of four hours per day, and the actual overtime work hours of the deceased are far more than that of the deceased.”

B. Article 3-B of the first instance judgment

1) The phrase “outtime work hours” in paragraph (c) means “overtime work hours, as seen in Section 1(a) of each week, the deceased’s actual overtime work hours are much higher than those of the deceased.” C-2(b) (the entirety of paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “On August 2010 to December 201, the deceased was on the average of 45-46 hours per month; on the other hand, the actual overtime work hours are far more than those of the soldiers engaged in the same occupation before the examination of the species, and the deceased appears to have been under considerable stress compared to those of the soldiers engaged in the same occupation before the examination of the species of work; on the other hand, it is difficult to conclude that the deceased’s immunity was reduced to a certain degree.”