1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On July 13, 2018, the Defendant’s non-approval of medical care for the Plaintiff on official duty.

1. The reasons why the court used this part of the disposition are as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. As such, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff did not receive medical treatment as the first and second injury disease in the instant case during the several years prior to the instant accident, and that the Plaintiff received medical treatment as “the climatic and other conical disability accompanied by the nephical ppuri disease” was on January 17, 2015, and the malido was merely the degree of physical treatment. This is irrelevant to the first and second injury, and each of the instant injury and disease was caused by the instant accident.

However, each of the instant injury and disease was aggravated beyond the natural progress due to the Plaintiff’s 15-year work as a member of the NIS or the instant accident.

Therefore, since public duties and the injury and disease of this case are recognized as having considerable relation to each of the injury and disease of this case, the defendant's disposition of this case should be revoked as unlawful.

B. Article 35 of the former Public Official Pension Act (wholly amended by Act No. 15523, Mar. 20, 2018) of the relevant legal doctrine refers to a disease or injury caused by official duty during the performance of official duty. As such, the relationship between the occurrence of a disease or injury caused by official duty and the occurrence of an injury must be proved by the party asserting such relationship.

However, the causal relationship does not necessarily require proof of medical nature and science, and there is proof if it is recognized that there is considerable causal relationship from a normative perspective.

It should be viewed (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Du49211 decided December 15, 2016, etc.). C.

Judgment

In light of the above legal principles, the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 7, 8, 10 through 20, and Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 7, 8, 10 through 20, and the court of first instance’s E hospital’s appraisal of medical records.