1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of “a judgment on the Defendant’s argument” under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. As such, the reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as is, pursuant

2. Judgment on the defendant's argument of the trial

A. The Defendant’s assertion: (a) in light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant wound had already occurred at the time when it was deemed that the instant wound occurred, namely, the developments leading up to the occurrence of the injury, namely, the Plaintiff’s driving of a military vehicle with a military vehicle equipped with hand-on hand in the middle order on August 16, 2015, and August 17, 2015, which was driven by the Plaintiff while driving the military vehicle installed with hand-on hand in the middle order on August 16, 2015.

In light of the fact that there is no objective data to confirm that the shoulder has been broken back because it is placed at the self-defense on April 5, 2008 and is in line with the deaf-gu hole from which the plaintiff was on duty, ③ there is no data to confirm the degree of training received by the plaintiff and the amount of duties performed as a driver or a sick person to the extent that the amount of duties performed by the plaintiff would cause a sudden aggravation to the injury and disease of this case, there is no data to confirm that there is an excessive causal relation between the plaintiff's training or performance of duties during the plaintiff's military service and the difference in this case.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as a result of the fact-finding inquiry into Fains of the court of the first instance on the commission of physical examination to Fains of the Fains of the court of the first instance and the result of fact-finding, the result of the commission of medical examination to the high-ranking hospital and the higher-ranking hospital in the court of the first instance on the part of the court of the first instance on the part of the court of the first instance on the part of the first instance on the part of the defendant, and the result of fact-finding into the military

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① The Plaintiff on May 2004