1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff joined the defendant company on November 6, 1985 and served as B until December 7, 2005.

On March 29, 198, the Plaintiff suffered occupational accidents where the head part of the pine trees were faced. The Plaintiff received treatment with the approval of the medical care for the injury and injury of the injury and injury caused by the injury and injury caused by the injury and injury caused by the depression No. 5-6 on the part of the relevant pine trees. After the completion of the medical care, the Plaintiff received disability benefits after being judged as class 15 of the disability grade after the completion of the medical care.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On April 17, 2002, the purport of the cause of the claim was that the Plaintiff was assaulted during the course of being towed out by the police assigned for special guard while demanding a salary grade at the personnel affairs of the Defendant Company and the office of the Defendant Company. As a result, the symptoms of the escape of conical signboards between the 4-5 and the 4-5, such as the escape certificate, the brine coloring booming symptoms, and the booming of the body condition of the external wound, and the Plaintiff was being treated until now due to major depressions, the flusium, and the flusium (elusium). Thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages (daily income, medical expenses and consolation money) suffered by the Plaintiff for the up to 17 years from the time when the said assault was

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the employee belonging to the Defendant committed assault against the Plaintiff during the above temporary period, and furthermore, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the existing illness has deteriorated or that the Plaintiff had a major depression or a network disability certificate newly occurred, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Rather, the following circumstances can be revealed by the evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6, and ① The Plaintiff was diagnosed as a burient fluoral dynasium during the period from 2004 to 2005, but was diagnosed as a burient dynasium, but was caused by the existing occupational accident at the time.