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 the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the part added or added below, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following shall be added to the last two weeks following each second week of the judgment of the first instance:

On the other hand, at the time, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “non-epidemal cerebral tension,” in addition to “non-epidemal tension,” but did not claim as an occupational accident in the lawsuit of this case with respect to “non-epidemic cerebral cerebral Bribery.”

The 3 and 8 pages 5 of the judgment of the first instance shall be made under the 5 pages of the judgment of the first instance, respectively, by cutting "this court" into "the first instance court."

The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff worked on the plaintiff's holidays only for the purpose of receiving additional allowances, but there is no evidence supporting the above assertion. The plaintiff did not have any evidence supporting the above argument.

In addition, “A large number of career” in the judgment of the court of first instance 11, 8, 2007, the Plaintiff, “after obtaining the certificate of qualification as a mid-term driving technician, engaged in the operation of a excavated machine for about five years from the date of entry into B in 2012, and worked as a driver for about three years and six months from the date of the outbreak of the instant injury after entering B.

In addition, “I cannot look at the part 11 of the judgment of the first instance,” which read “I cannot see,” and the part which read “I cannot see, in light of the Plaintiff’s driver’s experience, it is difficult to see, in light of the Plaintiff’s driver’s business experience, the breakdown of the vehicle constitutes a sudden change in the business environment related to the Plaintiff’s business.”

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.