공무상요양제외상병불승인처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On December 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval of medical care for official duties with the Defendant on each of the injury and disease stated in the “written decision on approval of medical care.”
On February 3, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve medical treatment for official duties on the ground that it is difficult to recognize proximate causal relation with official duties with respect to each of the injury and disease listed in the same attached Form except for the same injury and disease (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”).
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence 1, Eul’s evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. As to the defense of this case
A. At the time of filing a lawsuit, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the instant disposition after seeking revocation of the decision made by the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee on April 29, 2014 at the time of filing the lawsuit, and subsequently amended the purport of the claim. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful because it fails to comply with the period for filing the lawsuit.
B. From the time of filing a lawsuit on August 6, 2014, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the Defendant’s non-approval of medical care for official duties, which the Defendant had against the Plaintiff.
(However, the Plaintiff erroneously stated the date of the instant disposition in the complaint’s claim as “No. 29, 2014.” but corrected it as “No. 3, 2014.” On the first date of pleading on October 2, 2014.” On the other premise, the Defendant’s defense of the principal safety based on the different premise is without merit.
3. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. Since the injury or disease of this case alleged by the Plaintiff has deteriorated due to official duties listed in the separate sheet, etc., the instant disposition should be revoked in an unlawful manner.
B. The “official disease or injury” as prescribed by Article 35 of the Public Officials Pension Act refers to the disease or injury caused by official duty while performing official duty. As such, there should be causation between official duty and disease or injury, and the causal relationship should be attested by the party asserting it.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Du7335, Dec. 13, 2012; 90Nu295, May 25, 1990). This Court is a court’s decision.