beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for modification or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. A corrected or added portion;
A. On the 6th and 4th of the judgment of the court of first instance, “The only evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the internal fire extinguishers and the relevant parts, among the items written in Gap Nos. 3, 4, and 5, and the results of the above medical record appraisal entrustment,” shall be amended to “each of the items written in the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the parts relating to the fire extinguisher No. 1 and 20 (including the paper number), the results of the fact inquiry on the head of the hospital of the first instance, the results of the entrustment of the medical record appraisal to the head of the Association of Medical Doctors of the first instance, and the
(b)the following shall be added between 6, 21 and 7, of the judgment of the first instance:
The result of each appraisal of medical records (Supplement) with respect to the chief executive officer of the Korean Medical Association of Medical Doctors at the Political Party may be inferred that a chronic pulmonary disease occurred to the deceased based on his/her occupation or past history, and the prescription details for the deceased. However, the medical record (the result of the examination of the function of the abolition, etc., or of the doctor's progress and of the nurse's nursing) alone cannot be conducted. However, in clinically, there is a possibility that the disease might have contributed to the low-income disease rather than the direct private person of the patient who died due to the pulmonary collection. (3) In the case of liver, there was a opinion on the liver examination at the end of July 25, 2012, while there was no previous examination record, it cannot be seen that the time of liver has occurred due to the lack of the previous examination record, and there was no opinion on the liver CT examination at the end of October 17, 2013.