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 reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the defendant to the new argument at the court of first instance as follows, and thus, it shall be cited by applying Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 4

2. Judgment on the assertion in the trial

A. The exploitation of the annual installments system due to the Defendant’s assertion of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion of the fact that the establishment of the annual installments system was incurred after the surgery and the mere personal wave alone does not result in the flexible establishment of the annual installments, and the Plaintiff’s receipt of the Plaintiff’s “the operation to incorporate the original flag with the front flag with the front flag’s abandonment into the front fla

In the case of the plaintiff, the disability rating should be determined based on the scope of passive movements that can guarantee objectivity rather than the scope of active movements that may involve subjective intent, so long as the attachment of the annual installment organization around the left-hand side of the surgery is not objectively verified, the disability rating should be determined based on the scope of passive movements. Since the passive exercise scope of the left-hand satisfaction is not limited to more than 1/4 of the normal range, it is ultimately short of the disability rating criteria.

B. According to the result of a request for the supplementation of the evidence by the court of first instance for the head of Yong-Namnam University Hospital at the court of first instance, it is recognized that the appraisal E failed to objectively verify the part of the Plaintiff’s body at the time of the appraisal.

However, according to the above evidence, although the appraisal did not objectively check the attachment of the official body at the time of the non-statement appraisal, it can be known that the plaintiff performed the operation after more than one month of the photograph taken by the hospital in which the operation was performed, and the Plaintiff determined that the failure of annual installments after the operation was only to a certain extent, considering the type of the operation performed by the plaintiff, etc., and it is not contradictory to the result of the appraisal according to such medical opinion or adopted it.