공무상요양불승인처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff’s argument in the first instance under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the trial
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion also argues that the Plaintiff’s injury and disease in this case was accumulated for a long time due to excessive social welfare work concentrated on the Plaintiff, and in particular, since January 2010, it should be deemed that the injury and disease in this case occurred due to excessive stress and stress caused by rapid increase in work from January 1, 2010, or that the work for the establishment of the integrated social welfare management network has increased rapidly due to the rapid increase in the supply of excessive work and visit and trip work, and that the Plaintiff lost an opportunity to receive timely medical treatment or management of dead body infection or informed blood transfusion, etc. which were suffering from the previous time due to the rapid increase in work, and that there was considerable occupational excess and stress.
B. Determination 1 of the Public Officials Pension Act provides that a public official’s disease in the line of duty, which is a requirement for the payment of expenses incurred in the performance of public duties and compensation for bereaved family members, must have a causal relationship between the public official’s disease and the disease caused by the disease during the performance of public duties, and the causal relationship is proved by the assertion of such causal relationship. However, the method and degree of proof does not necessarily have to be clearly proved by direct evidence, and is employed based on