The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the following parts and the parts determined additionally by this court, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(Attachment) 2. 2. The part written by the plaintiff and her husband D testified in the above criminal case against the defendant, and the defendant accused the plaintiff and her husband D against the charge of perjury, and it can be acknowledged that there is no suspicion against the plaintiff and D, and that there is no suspicion against the plaintiff and D.

5.The 5th and 13th "Franshion 20 April 2017" shall be applied to each of the 3rd and 13th and 25 April 2017;

"Class 6 19 of the 19th ruling" has been made on the date of the pronouncement of the judgment "B".

Attached Form

[Attachment 2] 3) During the period of hospitalization, the Plaintiff filed an order of July 27, 2017, “A” with “A” as one of July 27, 2017. 3. The part determined additionally by this Court was that there was no king prior to the act of injury in this case. After the act of injury in this case, the Plaintiff recognized that “A doctor who treated the Plaintiff was hospitalized as shown in [Attachment 2] and [Attachment 2] and 3] of the act of injury in this case. Thus, there was a causal relationship between the act of injury in this case and the Plaintiff’s receipt of hospitalized treatment as indicated in [Attachment 2] and [Attachment 2] and the Plaintiff’s receipt of hospital treatment as stated in [Attachment 2] and therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the following reasons is without merit.

1) According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 13 and 14 and the entire pleadings, it may be acknowledged that the plaintiff did not receive medical treatment for brupt or shoulder, etc. from 2015 to the time when the injury of this case occurred. However, the plaintiff was determined as a brupt disc in 2014 and was performed with psychotropic surgery (the plaintiff was the same).