The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except to add the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. 이 법원에서 고쳐쓰는 부분 ▣ 제1심판결서 제4쪽 제17행의 “때라는”부터 제19행의 “없다.”까지를 “때이다.”로 고친다.

3. The Plaintiff asserts that this Court’s additional decision in this Court stated as follows: “The Plaintiff did not intentionally cause the instant accident; the instant accident is not directly related to the Plaintiff’s unauthorized driving; and the instant accident occurred due to the competition of road management authorities’ negligence other than the Plaintiff’s negligence; thus, the instant accident does not constitute grounds for restriction on benefits under Article 53(1)1 of the National Health Insurance Act premised on the Plaintiff’s intentional or gross negligence.”

The above assertion made by the plaintiff in this court does not differ from the contents of the plaintiff's assertion in the first instance court. However, the first instance court's determination rejecting the plaintiff's assertion is justifiable, as seen earlier, by examining the evidence submitted in the first instance court to this court (Evidence No. 18-19-5 of the Evidence No. A), even though the plaintiff's driving act constitutes a criminal act of violating the Road Traffic Act (non-license). In particular, while the plaintiff is driving a vehicle normally depending on the lane, he is trying to temporarily over the road where the central line that is prohibited from crossing is installed but rather to cross the road where the central line that is prohibited from crossing is installed while the plaintiff is driving a vehicle at a normal level. Therefore, the negligence cannot

4. The plaintiff's claim is without merit.

The judgment of the first instance, which dismissed the plaintiff's claim, is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit.