1. On January 25, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of medical care for official duties rendered to the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a local public official who served as a chief of the civil petition service community office in the Gyeong-gun Office B of Gyeongnam-gun.

B. On October 7, 2016, around 18:30 on October 7, 2016, the Plaintiff attended a ceremony held in the cafeteria of “D” in the name of “D”, which is held in the cafeteria of Gyeongnam-gun, and provided meals and drinking, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was in the vicinity of the above cafeteria.

At the meeting held by the main office, he participated in the meeting.

C. On October 7, 2016, the Plaintiff’s summary around 21:50 of the instant case, which had finished the ceremony.

Gag from the main point and thereafter Gags

At the main point, approximately 300 meters away from E stairs railing (hereinafter “instant accident”) was caused by the instant accident, and immediately received treatment after being sent to the emergency room of the nearby hospital.

On January 25, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care for performing official duties with the injury of “the injury of sea water, light water, and other damage of unknown whereabouts, salll, salphalopical salpha, and chronic pulmonary pulmonary dynasium I” due to the instant accident. However, on the ground that the instant accident was out of the normal departure route, the Defendant did not accept the application for medical care for the said Plaintiff’s official duties (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Entry in the attached Form of relevant statutes;

B. The main sentence of Article 29(1)2 B of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act is determined.

According to this item, in order to recognize the injury caused by an accident that occurred during his/her retirement as an injury for official duty, his/her retirement should be within the scope of ordinary route and method.

Whether the instant accident was within the scope of ordinary route and method, and can be seen by adding the overall purport of the pleadings to the statement or image of evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6, as well as witness F’s testimony.