1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On April 2, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval of medical care for official duties against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment by the court in this part is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) in the event that the work has increased due to a decrease in the number of personnel in the human resources development team, the Plaintiff performed various tasks such as conference and preparation for events, farmers’ education, and field guidance; (b) during that process, in the event that the Plaintiff is going to travel outside of the hall, the hours of overtime work for the Plaintiff was not recognized as much as the actual hours of work; and (c) in particular, up to one week prior to the occurrence of the instant injury and disease, the Plaintiff served in the AI quarantine center to guide the field of farmers’ association immediately after the next day.

On the day immediately before the date of the instant injury, the Plaintiff visited the mother who was hospitalized in the hospital in the P.M., and was locked in the nearby apartment, and became a traffic accident in the following apartment, and the instant injury and disease occurred in the P.M. on the day.

If so, the Plaintiff’s injury to the injury of this case was caused by stress and overwork, and traffic accident that occurred during the attendance day of the injury of this case. Thus, it constitutes a disease or injury caused by official duty.

B. 1) Whether this court can claim a disaster during work at the court (the occupational injury) is a separate concept that is distinguished from occupational disease and occupational injury. Since the defendant examined only whether the overwork and stress arising from the work at the time of the instant disposition were the cause of the instant injury (the occupational disease), it is argued that it is unreasonable to determine the legitimacy of the instant disposition on the grounds of whether the disaster during work at the time falls under the occupational injury (the occupational injury).