1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 1, 1990, the Plaintiff, who was appointed as a civilian military employee in charge of gaseous maintenance of an aircraft, filed an application for approval of medical treatment for official duties with the Defendant on July 2017, 201, stating that “Around 14:50 of May 8, 2016, the Plaintiff, who was in charge of the construction of Kuwaita, was subject to the examination of the “Sari No. 4 Jeon-Sari, Mail” on the part of the Defendant, while performing the construction of Kuwaita for the purpose of holding and supporting events against the national interest of Kuwaita (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. On September 1, 2017, the Defendant approved the Plaintiff’s medical care for the Heatitis, and issued a disposition not to grant medical care on the ground that it was determined as a sediative disease and that there is no proximate causal relation with the official duties (hereinafter “instant injury”). The part of the approval of the medical care for the injury and disease in this case’s injury and disease’s injury and disease’s injury and disease’s injury and disease’s injury and disease’s injury and disease’s injury and injury and injury are not acknowledged.

C. On the other hand, around March 15, 2007, the Plaintiff diagnosed vertebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate, and claimed that the above ebrate occurred due to the Plaintiff’s gaseous improvement work and the support work for the legislative event, and filed an application for medical care benefits to the Defendant on the part of official duties. However, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval for medical care on

Therefore, the Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the above disposition as Seoul Administrative Court 2007Gudan9665, but the above court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff appealed as Seoul High Court 2008Du37321, but the appeal was dismissed, and the above judgment became final and conclusive as the Plaintiff appealed as Seoul High Court 2009Du17384 but was dismissed due to the rejection of the appeal.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 12, 13, 26 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful.