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.

1. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance was presented additionally to this court, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or additional parts] Under the 5th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "examination of the medical records of this case" in the 1st sentence is considered as the "examination of the medical records of the first instance court".

In the 7th page of the first instance judgment, the "the result of the request for each medical record appraisal for the president of the G Association and the president of the F Hospital" in the second sentence shall be "the result of the request for each medical record appraisal for the president of the first instance court and the president of the F Hospital".

On the 3 to 4th of the first instance judgment, "the result of the entrustment of the examination of medical records to the head of F Hospital" in the first instance court's 9th sentence shall be "the result of the entrustment of the examination of medical records to the head of F Hospital"

The following shall be added between the 9th sentence, the 11th sentence and the 12th sentence:

On the other hand, the plaintiff was suffering from mental stress in 2012 to 2014, where the death and kidne disease of the deceased were seen to have rapidly aggravated due to their chronic work burden, and due to changes in the worker's condition and the status in the company. The plaintiff asserts to the purport that a proximate causal relationship between the death and the work of the deceased is recognized, even if the death and the work of the deceased were first caused by occupational causes, or the chronic renal failure was caused due to occupational causes, or ② the liver renal failure was caused due to the aggravation of chronic renal failure due to occupational causes, even if the liver renal failure was caused due to the aggravation of the speed above the natural progress due to occupational causes.

However, the disease is between the two.