공무상요양불승인처분취소
1. On April 30, 2019, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval for medical care granted to the Plaintiff on official duty is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Details of the disposition
A. Since being appointed as a fire-fighting official on October 1, 1979, the Plaintiff (B) retired on December 31, 2015, while serving as the head of the Incheon Southern Fire-Fighting Center, and retired from office on the part of December 31, 2015. The Plaintiff (B) diagnosed 'Magneneneneic Cheongsung History (In the case of the instant injury and disease; hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”), and applied for approval for medical care for official duties to the Defendant.
B. On April 30, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition of non-approval of medical care for official duties (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the causes of the instant injury and disease were diverse, as well as the occurrence of the injury and disease, and the Plaintiff’s ability was verified normally through a special health examination by up to 2014, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was in a particularly unfavorable working environment, such as working as a police box and a 119 safety center leader after July 7, 2003.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was continuously exposed to noise above 110dB, such as sirens, loudspeakers, etc. of dispatched vehicles, while serving as fire fighting officers at an average of four to five times a day. The Plaintiff did not cause any cause other than noise to the Plaintiff, and thus, there was no proximate causal relation between the main branch of the instant case and public duties, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case on a different premise should be revoked.
B. Determination 1) The former Public Officials Pension Act (wholly amended by Act No. 15523, Mar. 20, 2018) referred to in Article 35(1) refers to a disease or injury caused by an official duty while performing official duties. As such, there is a proximate causal relation between the official duty and the disease or injury, and it should be proved by the party asserting it.