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 judgment of this court, such as accepting the judgment of the court of first instance, is as follows: (a) adding “G life” to “Plaintiff” following the second 3rd of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) except supplementing or adding the judgment as follows, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part pertaining to “3. conclusion” excluding the part pertaining to “3. conclusion”), and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of

2. The supplementary and additional Plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful since the Plaintiff’s impediment to the Plaintiff’s psychological system function or mental function falls under “the remainder of the national part of the national part,” rather than “the remainder of the national part,” (class 14 subparag. 10) (Class 12 subparag. 15).

In light of the fact-finding results with respect to the H Hospital Head of this court, as in the first instance judgment, there is no special brain tension with the Plaintiff, and there is no other specific opinion. Thus, as seen in the first instance judgment cited by the court of this case, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff constitutes “the state where there is labor ability, but there is medical opinion on the disorder of the function or mental function of the neurosis, or the state where there is medically recognized self-proof of the disorder in the function or mental function of the psychosis, etc.” under the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act as “the state where there is medical opinion on the disorder of the pathy, etc., or where it is medically recognized,

(B) Although the court appraisal of the second court revealed that the Plaintiff’s disability grade falls under class 15 of class 12, the result of the court appraisal of August 25, 2016, which was the basis of such opinion, was conducted in the course of the Plaintiff’s request for examination disputing the instant disposition, and it cannot be ruled out that the result was affected by the Plaintiff’s attitude of inspection, etc., and thus, it is difficult to adopt the opinion of the second court appraisal as it is). The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.