beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the court's explanation is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition and addition as
The results of the examination by the court of first instance, as shown below, are difficult to accept in light of the overall contents of Nos. 1-1 and 2, and the results of the examination by the court of first instance, as shown below, the whole contents of Nos. 1-1 and 2, and the results of the examination by the court of first instance, and the results of examination by the court of first instance, of Nos. 3, 10 and 8, respectively, of these Parts of the Court's 7, 7, and 8 under the court of first instance to the "Court of first instance", and of No. 6, the evidence No. 6, the testimony by the witness of the court of first instance, and the results of examination by the court of first instance to the end of No. 11, which added the following parts to the "No. 6, the witness 6, the witness J, the witness J's testimony, and the result of examination by the court of first instance to the court of first instance to the contrary.
However, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments and arguments as a result of the evidence verification by the court of first instance and Eul evidence Nos. 1-2 and the CD image verification by the court of first instance, it cannot be deemed that D appealed appealed from the body part other than the item as at the time when D visited an emergency room. However, it cannot be deemed that there was a need to conduct a repeated close inspection for telegraph as otherwise alleged in the above assertion, unless there is any circumstance to suspect that D had a serious disease, and thus, it is necessary for the prosecutor to conduct a repeated close inspection for telegraph as otherwise alleged in the above evidence.