1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion occurred on November 12, 1990 when he/she was employed by the Defendant and was working for the Defendant (hereinafter “instant accident”). On September 27, 2011, the Plaintiff’s assertion caused a new osperal damage to the handicapped who could not have been anticipated at the time of the instant accident, and the Defendant, who was negligent in performing his/her duty to take safety care of the Plaintiff, should pay a solatium of KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff.

2. In the judgment, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff neglected to perform the duty of safety consideration to the Plaintiff, an employee, solely on the basis of the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1, 2-1 through 8, 3, and 4, the results of the Plaintiff’s principal examination, and the fact-finding on the government-specific hospital of the Katol University, and the result of the fact-finding on the Plaintiff’s Katol University. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

In addition, the above evidence of the plaintiff's submission alone is insufficient to recognize that there was a proximate causal relationship between the accident of this case and the accident of this case as it was caused by eromatic damage claimed by the plaintiff as a new chronic disability, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit to further examine.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.