공무상요양불승인처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The plaintiff is a person appointed as a police officer on August 5, 1989.
The injury of this case, which is the Plaintiff’s disease, refers to the state when the function of the body part of the kidne has been reduced and the function of the body part of the kidne continues for not less than six months. The main cause of the outbreak is the urology, high blood pressure, the body part of the body part of the body part of the kidne, chronic renalitis, chronic renaldney diseases, etc.
In light of the medical characteristics of the disease described above, it is difficult to regard the disease of the Plaintiff as the result of the Plaintiff’s performance of duties, and the details of the Plaintiff’s duties have continued excessive duties beyond ordinary and ordinary limits.
In full view of the fact that it cannot be inferred that the disease occurred from the health insurance care, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s disease was continuously treated due to the “insulinininine-sulllic urine with a high blood pressure, dysulosis, and chronic dysulmatic dysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysy
B. On December 17, 2015, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by a police hospital with a detailed chronic kidney disease (hereinafter “instant injury”). Around April 2018, the Plaintiff applied for approval of medical care for official duties to the Defendant.
However, on May 31, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve medical care for official duties on the following grounds to the Plaintiff:
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant case is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion has been continuously engaged in excessive duties while working as a police officer for about 29 years, and around 200, the plaintiff was diagnosed with urology and urology.
However, the plaintiff from around 209.