1. On March 6, 2015, the Defendant’s non-approval of additional medical care for the Plaintiff on official duties and non-approval of the extension of the period.

1. On November 12, 200, the Plaintiff, who was on duty at the Mapo Police Station B police box, completed a patrol on November 12, 200, and got off the crosswalk, was shocked on the vehicle in violation of signal, and was approved for medical care for official duties for the total period from November 13, 200 to February 12, 2001.

On February 25, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval of additional injury and extension of the period of medical care (from February 19, 2015 to March 30, 2015) with the Defendant “after an ex post facto injury due to an ex post facto injury due to an ex post facto injury due to an ex post facto injury due to an ex post facto injury due (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

On March 6, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to approve the extension of the period of medical care on the ground that it is difficult to deem that there was a causal relationship between the instant injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and the injury and injury

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Eul evidence No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. As to the defense of this case

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff sought revocation of the decision made by the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee at the time of filing a lawsuit, and revised the purport of the instant disposition on March 9, 2016 to seek revocation of the instant disposition. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful because it failed to observe the period of filing the lawsuit.

B. Since the filing of the lawsuit on September 16, 2015, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the instant disposition against the Defendant against the Plaintiff.

(However, the Plaintiff erroneously stated the date of the instant disposition in the complaint as “ June 17, 2015,” and submitted only the filing of an application for modification of the purport and cause of the instant disposition to “ March 6, 2015,” which corrected the date of the instant disposition to “ March 6, 2016.” The Defendant’s main defense from a different premise is without merit.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful or not, constitutes a cause for medical treatment on official duty.