2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On October 1, 1975, the Plaintiff was appointed as a police officer and worked at the Guro Police Station on October 1, 1989, and was performed on February 15, 1990 on the ground that brain salutic disease (dual salute) occurred.

After that, the plaintiff continued to work and retired on May 6, 2002.

B. On June 10, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) filed an application for registration with the Defendant on the ground that “the instant injury to 20 persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State was caused by cerebral sale and stress caused by overwork as a police officer; and (b) a fluoral fluence (hereinafter “instant injury”). However, on October 10, 2013, the Defendant rendered a non-competent decision on the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that the instant injury to the Plaintiff was not recognized as a causal relationship with the police officer’s performance of his/her duties (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he was appointed as a police officer for 14 years immediately before the outbreak of the injury, while serving as a police officer for 14 hours immediately before the outbreak. In particular, during the period from November 17, 198 to the Guro Police Station Security Division, the Plaintiff was in charge of the guard duty and demonstration duty, and as he was in charge of the guard duty and demonstration duty at the time of his during the period from July 1, 1989, the Plaintiff was in charge of the guard duty at the time of his during the period from July 1 to 3, 1989, and became worse due to heavy stress and excess due to his duty, such as performing an excessive duty to train about 1,300 security personnel, including various plans, preliminary answers, and field practice.

Therefore, the instant disposition that determined that causation between the business branch and the duty of this case is not recognized is unlawful.

(b)the honorable treatment and determination of persons of distinguished service to the State;