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 first instance except for the addition or dismissal of the following parts. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A portion used for adding or cutting;

A. On No. 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following parts are added between the 11st and 12th, and the following parts are added to “a fact that there is no dispute,” in the 12th of the same face,” and “A evidence and 12” are added.

D. The Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee on May 9, 2014, which rejected the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on the following grounds: “The Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s request for reexamination was observed on the right side of the image data from the field of the check, but it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation with the disaster as a sediative variable, which is not a acute scarcity.”

B. From Nos. 2 to 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the two pages 19 to 2 shall be followed as follows.

According to the results of the fact-finding by the court of first instance, the results of the fact-finding by the C Hospital: ① the Plaintiff’s physical examination by the Haak University Hospital was found to be “the outcome of damage to the part of the opening of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of January 9, 2014, and the opinion of damage to the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of January 23, 2014; ② the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back.

In light of this, the descriptions of Gap evidence 5-1 and Gap evidence 6 are sufficient enough to check the right side of the applicant injury and disease to the plaintiff on December 14, 2013.