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 working as a police officer at the Pyeongtaek Police Station B district.

B. On February 24, 2006, the Plaintiff was on duty and was on duty at around 08:05, and was on duty at around 08:05, and applied for an additional medical care for the above injury and disease during the period from February 24, 2006 to May 14, 2007 (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”). At the Police Hospital, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the instant injury and disease” and received an operation and applied for an additional medical care for the said injury and disease from November 6, 201 to December 218, 2011, and applied for the extension of the period from December 18, 201 to December 13, 201.

On February 3, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the extension of the period of medical care with the above additional medical service on the ground that the injury or disease in the instant case can not be deemed as a direct and major cause of the injury or disease.

The Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee, but the Review Committee dismissed the said request on April 17, 2012.

C. Around May 2012, the Plaintiff applied for approval of medical treatment for official duties with respect to the instant injury and disease. However, on June 18, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve the Plaintiff’s application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relation between the instant injury and the instant injury and disease.

In response to the instant disposition, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee. However, on September 18, 2012, the Review Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for review on the ground that “it is impossible to confirm the obvious opportunity of outbreak because there is no submission of evidentiary materials on the date and time of occurrence and the circumstances of occurrence,” and that it appears to be an spaced certificate approved at the time of application for additional medical care due to official duties, and thus it is difficult to deem that there is a proximate

[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute.