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.

The court's explanation of this case by the court of the first instance as to this case is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance judgment, since Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are the same as the reasoning of the first instance judgment in addition to adding a judgment on the matters asserted by the plaintiff in the first instance trial as follows.

(Evidence of the evidence submitted at the court of first instance and the witness D at the court of first instance may not be recognized as having caused the injury or disease of this case or rapidly deteriorated at a natural speed beyond that of the Plaintiff’s duties, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. On the third page of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added to the witness witness D at the court of first instance.

The Plaintiff used a leave from August 11, 201 to September 12, 201 of the same month immediately before the commencement of the instant training period, and took a break from September 2, 201, September 4, 2011, after the completion of the instant training period, by using a half of September 2, 2011, which was September 2, 201. The Plaintiff changed into a part of subparagraph 3 of the first instance judgment of "(C)" (d) of Part 12 of the first instance judgment of "(d).

The grounds for recognition from Class 2 to Class 5 of the first instance judgment shall be changed as follows.

【The grounds for the recognition of the Bame x x x x x x x, A, 7, 8, 14, 16, 17, 20, 24, 25, 29, and 7 and 8, respectively, (including the branch numbers for which there are additional numbers)

(2) After the first instance court’s first instance court’s examination results of medical records and fact-finding results on the director of Ansan Hospital of Korea University, and the first instance court’s first instance court’s examination results, “it is difficult to see that there was any change in the testimony and arguments of the witness D, and the Plaintiff appears to have taken a rest to a certain extent by using the leave before and after the period of the second instance court’s training.”

The defendant asserted that the plaintiff's additional judgment was made on April 27, 2012 on the injury and disease of this case to the plaintiff.