(b) Whether a doctor in charge of the health of the Korea Health and Social Bureau and tuberculosis control under its control falls under the intention provided for in subparagraph (a) of the attached Table 9 of Article 14 of the Local Public Officials Allowance Regulations (Presidential Decree No. 11034, Feb. 1, 1983)

B. Article 14 of the Regulations on Allowances for Local Public Officials (Presidential Decree No. 11034, Feb. 1, 1983) provides that unlike Article 12 of the Regulations on Allowances for Local Public Officials, Article 14 provides that a tuberculosis manager who works in the Health Department of the Do Health and Social Bureau shall specify the subject of the payment and the method of payment in his/her own ordinances and delegate only the amount to the ordinances. However, if a tuberculosis manager, who works in the Health Department of the Do Health and Social Bureau, was in charge of the diagnosis and treatment duties in a regular tour at each Si/Gun public health center every month, and the act of the diagnosis and treatment duty constitutes a major function as a tuberculosis manager, the above manager shall not be deemed as a "doctor from among the public officials engaged in the diagnosis and treatment duties in a public health center" provided for in attached Table 9 of Article 14 of the above Regulations, so the health department belonging to the above manager does not constitute a medical institution or public health center

2. The remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiff are dismissed and all costs of appeal by the dismissed appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the plaintiff served as a miscellaneous (Class 7 2) tuberculosis manager in the health department of the Ministry of Health and Welfare from April 8, 1980 to December 31, 1981, and entered into an employment contract with the Do governor of the defendant Do and a local professional staff member from January 1, 1982, and served as a 2nd tuberculosis manager from the above health department until March 7, 1983. The court below rejected the plaintiff's request for medical care allowances from the plaintiff during the period from January 1, 1982 to December 31 of the same year since the local professional staff member's specific scope of eligibility for medical care allowances was delegated to the Municipal Ordinance of the relevant local government, under Article 12 (2) of the Regulations on Specialized Officials in the Health and Welfare Service established by the defendant, and the plaintiff did not correspond to the above 13th medical institution's health care allowances or the public health clinic's specialized staff member's work.

2. Article 12 of the Regulations on Local Professional Officials (Article 10746 of the Decree No. 10746 of March 5, 1982) shall apply to medical treatment allowances for doctors who are local professional public officials like the Plaintiff from January 1, 1982 to December 31 of the same year, and Article 2 of the Decree on the Amendment of the Rules on the Rules on the Local Public Officials Remuneration of January 1, 1983 (Presidential Decree No. 11034 of February 1, 1983) shall apply to the subsequent period after January 1, 1983, Article 25 of the Decree on the Amendment of the Rules on the Local Public Officials Remuneration of Public Officials (Presidential Decree No. 11034 of February 1, 1983), and Article 12 of the above Rules and Article 14 of the above Rules on the Allowances for Local Public Officials shall be divided into cases where Article 14 of the above Rules is applied.

(1) First of all, Article 12 of the Local Specialized Officials Regulations applied during the period from January 1, 1982 to December 31, 1982, which applies to the Local Specialized Officials Regulations, may be paid medical treatment allowances within budgetary limits to the local public officials established and operated by the local government for their doctors engaged in medical treatment at hospitals, public health clinics, hospitals, and other medical institutions.

Ultimately, in accordance with Article 12(1) of the above Act, an organization of local governments may pay medical treatment allowances to a doctor engaged in medical treatment at a medical institution within budgetary limits, but specifically determining the scope of persons eligible for medical treatment allowances within budgetary limits is delegated to the ordinances of the relevant local government pursuant to Article 12(2). Therefore, only the persons prescribed by the above Ordinance may claim medical treatment allowances, and other persons shall be deemed to have no authority to claim medical treatment allowances even if they are engaged in

However, according to attached Table 2 of Article 4 of the Defendant’s Ordinance on the Payment of Allowances for Local Public Officials of Chungcheongbuk-do, which was enacted under Article 12(2) of the above Act, the Ordinance of the Defendant’s Do defines the person eligible for medical care allowances as limited to the intention of the former public official who works in the Do Hospital. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment on this point is justifiable as it is that the Plaintiff, who worked in the health department of the State of Health and Social Service,

The issue of appeal is based on the premise that Article 12(1) of the Regulations on Specialized Local Public Officials requires the payment of medical care allowances to the public officials in the same group, and only the amount and method of payment are delegated to the local government, but the judgment below is erroneous. However, as seen above, Article 12(2) of the Regulations on Specialized Local Public Officials delegates to the ordinances of the local government by the date on which the payment of medical care allowances is determined.

(2) According to the attached Table 9 of Article 14 of the Local Public Officials Remuneration Regulations based on Article 25 of the Local Public Officials Remuneration Regulations enforced after January 1, 1983, the following provisions stipulate the payment of daily-class medical care allowances to public officials engaged in special duties as medical care allowances (A) among medical public officials and professional public officials who are engaged in medical care at medical institutions and public health clinics established and operated by a local government, (b) among medical public officials and professional public officials who are on board a hospital operated by a local government, and on the other hand, the payment amount and payment method shall be delegated by the Ordinance of the relevant local government with the approval of the Minister of Home Affairs or the

Ultimately, unlike Article 12 of the above Local Public Officials' Allowances Regulations, Article 14 attached Table 9 of the above Local Public Officials' Allowances Regulations clearly state the subject of payment in the local public officials' organization and delegates only the amount and method of payment to ordinances. Therefore, there is no doubt to consider that there is a right to claim medical treatment allowances under Article 14 (a) and (b) of the above Local Public Officials' Allowances Rules.

However, the plaintiff asserted that the court below's decision belongs to the health department of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and 17 days to 18 days through 17 days through 18 days in each month, and that the public health clinic of the Ministry of Health and Welfare has been in charge of treating tuberculosis patients, such as reading X-ray films and directly treating tuberculosis patients (see preparatory documents of April 2, 1986), and the non-party 1, the witness of the court below who is the witness of the plaintiff, made a statement corresponding to the above plaintiff's main director, and even according to the testimony of non-party 2, the witness of the court below who is the defendant witness of the court below, the plaintiff was involved in the treatment business while travelling the public health lawsuit of each Si/Gun for

If the plaintiff was in charge of diagnosis and treatment in each Si/Gun/Gu public health clinic on a monthly basis, and the act of treatment was in charge of performing the important duties as a tuberculosis manager, it shall not be deemed that the plaintiff is a "medical doctor from among public officials engaged in diagnosis and treatment in public health centers" as provided in attached Table 9 of Article 14 of the above Local Public Officials' Allowances Rules, and the health department to which the plaintiff belongs is not a medical institution or public health clinic, and thus, it shall not be excluded from the subject of the above medical treatment allowance.

Therefore, the court below should have taken care of whether the plaintiff was in charge of the medical care at a public health clinic as alleged by the plaintiff, and whether the medical care duty in charge constituted a person subject to the payment of the medical care allowance, and should have taken care of whether the plaintiff was entitled to the payment of the medical care allowance. However, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for the medical care allowance on the ground that the plaintiff's work is not a medical institution, public health clinic, or hospital, without any name. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the above local public official allowance provision, nor did it contain any error affecting the conclusion of the judgment due to insufficient deliberation and lack of reason. Therefore, the appeal

3. Ultimately, the part against the Plaintiff regarding the claim for medical treatment allowance after January 1, 1983 among the judgment below is deemed to be unlawful and considerably contrary to justice and equity, and thus, this part of the judgment below shall be reversed and remanded to the court below. The remaining part of the judgment below concerning the claim for medical treatment allowance is just and there is no assertion in the grounds of appeal as to the claim for risk allowance, and the appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of the appeal concerning the dismissal of appeal shall be assessed against the losing judge's assent

Justices Lee Jae-seok (Presiding Justice)