1. On February 15, 2012, the Defendant’s disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s non-approval of the injury and disease excluded from medical care due to official duties.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 20, 201, the Plaintiff, at around 08:25, was a patrol guard of the Tong Young Military Police Station B police box (position patrol commander), and was present at the road in front of the F Care Center near the Eshotland located in D at the time of Systren, while serving at around 08:25 on December 20, 201, and was injured by the vehicle due to the math vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). (b)

The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for approval of medical care for official duties as an injury or disease for the medical care of “the Madles and tensions of the Hadles, and the Madles of the Madles of the 4-5 Twits.” However, on February 15, 2012, the Defendant rejected medical care for official duties on the ground that “the Madles and tensions of the Madles” among the above injury or disease was approved for official duties, and “the Madles of the 4-5 Twits of the Madles of the Madles of the Madles of the Madles of the Madles” (hereinafter “the injury or disease in this case”), and that “the Madles of the Madles of the Madles of the Madles of the Ma

(hereinafter the aforementioned non-approval portion of medical care for official duties is referred to as the “instant disposition”).

Although the Plaintiff filed a request for review against the instant disposition, the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for review on June 12, 2012, on the ground that “The instant injury and disease, which is the Plaintiff’s disease, is considered due to the MOI reading results, etc., at least because it is difficult to regard it as a new or aggravated disease in connection with the instant traffic accident.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant injury occurred due to the instant accident or the existing disease rapidly aggravated beyond natural progress, and thus, the instant disposition based on a different premise constitutes an accident on official duty.