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 deceased B (C birth, hereinafter “the deceased”) who is the Plaintiff’s spouse was diagnosed on August 12, 2012 while serving as a police official from September 2, 2000.

B. On February 14, 2013, the Deceased asserted that the Defendant was frequently exposed to the automobile exhaust while serving as a traffic survey personnel, and that the instant injury and disease occurred due to occupational malpractice and stress. However, on February 22, 2013, the Defendant applied for approval of medical care for official duties. However, on February 22, 2013, the Defendant issued a non-approval disposition (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) on the ground that “it is difficult to deem that there is a proximate causal relation with the official duties with the instant injury and disease” (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) on the ground that, considering the academic opinions of the academic community that “the cause of the outbreak of the lung cancer except for the smoking in the modern medicine is not clearly indicated,” and generally, it can be viewed as an occupational disease to be continuously exposed to the cancer substances that may cause the lung cancer for eight to

C. On March 6, 2013, the Deceased died, and the Plaintiff, the deceased’s spouse, was dissatisfied with the instant disposition on April 30, 2013, filed a request for examination, but the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee dismissed it on July 16, 2013.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, Gap 2, Gap 3, Gap 5, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that 7 years and 3 months of his service as a police officer had been exposed for a long time to the automobile exhaust gas on the road, such as diesel, while serving as a traffic survey personnel, etc., and the deceased suffered from excessive work and stress due to malicious civil petitioners, etc. while handling work on duty and traffic accident cases. In light of the fact that the deceased is a non-smoking and has no family capacity such as waste cancer, etc., the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.