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 the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the parts to be filled or added below, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The fourth letter of the judgment of the first instance, "from September 22, 1986," and "14 and 8 months," respectively, shall be deemed "from June 12, 1986," and "14 and 11 months," respectively.

The 5th end of the judgment of the first instance, and 6th under the 7th part of the 7th part, all of the 6th "this court" shall be called "the first instance court."

At the bottom of the 7th judgment of the first instance, 5, “the results of fact inquiry,” followed by adding “the results of fact inquiry,” to this court’s medical corporation, Dong Dongin Hospital.”

The following shall be added to the 10th page of the first instance judgment:

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's symptoms should be viewed as the elderly's distress, considering that the plaintiff's retirement from the mining center had not been confirmed at the time of his/her service in the Dong-dong medical corporation from September 22, 1986 to May 22, 2001, and that the plaintiff had been diagnosed on March 31, 2015 even though the prosecutor who had sufficiently failed to perform his/her service in the above hospital was possible.

According to the result of the fact-finding on the head of the Dong-dong medical corporation, it is recognized that the plaintiff performed the duty of care and guidance for the mental ward who was unable to perform the duty in the case of a serious witness at the Dong-dong medical corporation, Dong-dong medical corporation, from June 12, 1986 to May 22, 2001.

However, as seen earlier, in the early stage of noise in the noise level, there is no evidence to deem that the hearing power of the Plaintiff was identical to that of March 31, 2015, and the age (37 to 52) at the time of the Plaintiff’s work at the above hospital is the elderly citizens.