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 Plaintiff is a public official in charge of green environment, living environment, parks and greenbelts, and duties under his/her jurisdiction at the B Resident Center in Seopopo-si, Seopo-si.

B. On May 4, 2018, at around 18:10, the Plaintiff was found to have been used in the male toilet of the B Resident Center and was diagnosed as brain cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral (hereinafter “the instant cerebral cerebral”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for medical care for official duties with respect to the Defendant, on the ground that the instant injury was caused by occupational fruit and stress, but the Defendant suffered from occupational stress and stress.

On July 5, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s existing disease, such as blood pressure, was the cause of such disease, the Plaintiff made a disposition of non-approval of medical care for official duties (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Judgment of the court below] Facts without a dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff often worked in excess of human resources during his/her work at the B Resident Center, and the stress was also significant since it is against malicious civil petitions related to illegal stopping, illegal dumping, separation and discharge of wastes. Such occupational careers and stress should be deemed the main cause for the occurrence of the injury of the injury of this case.

Even if it is not so, it should be deemed that the occupational course and stress overlap with the high blood pressure, which is the Plaintiff’s existing disease, and thus, the injury of this case has caused or aggravated.

The instant disposition issued on a different premise must be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Determination is based on Article 35(1) of the former Public Officials Pension Act (wholly amended by Act No. 15523, Mar. 20, 2018) that requires the payment of expenses incurred in the performance of public duties, between a public official’s disease and a disease arising during his/her performance of official duties.