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 court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Under the fourth sentence of the judgment of the first instance, the first instance court’s “this court” is deemed to be the “court of the first instance,” and the “witness” is deemed to be the “witness witness of the first instance court,” and the following is added to the sixth sentence below. In the result of the court’s entrustment of medical record to the director of the Seoul Medical Center of the Seoul Medical Center, appraisal is highly likely to have died of the deceased by means of bad-quality or excessive blood transfusion by the deceased. This is likely to have been the cause of the shock, the first sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, the second sentence, and second sentence.

According to this, it seems that it is difficult for the deceased to directly cause the death, such as urology, high blood pressure, etc., but such urology had a considerable impact on the overall health condition of the deceased. Therefore, the relationship with the death still cannot be excluded.

Above all, as seen earlier, the deceased’s ordinary scope is compared to public officials in charge of the same kind of duties in light of the duties and work hours of the deceased.