1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of medical care for official duties rendered on February 5, 2015 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 26, 2014, the Plaintiff was a public official working in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Public Health and Environment Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as the “Non-Party Research Institute”)’s team B Team’s former and incumbent employees, etc. at a restaurant near Non-Party Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as the “first ceremony”) from around 20:19 to 20:0, and a meeting at a beer professional store (hereinafter referred to as the “second ceremony”) from around 21:25 to 31:25, the Plaintiff was killed from a bicycle during his house (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”) by using bicycles. Accordingly, the Plaintiff received the instant accident from the public official, who did not have any open address in the middle of his/her blood transfusions, without any open body in the middle of his/her external he/she is found to have been in the middle of his/her opening, the part of his/her mouth agriculture and fisheries in his/her mouth and the part of his/her hair therapy and the part of his/her hair diagnosis (hereinafter referred to as the “the instant case”).

B. On January 9, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant injury to the Defendant was an injury for official duties, and applied for approval of medical care for official duties. However, on February 5, 2015, the Defendant issued a non-approval disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant injury to the Defendant was carried out for personal expenses without establishing a prior plan only for all employees, and that the instant injury to the Defendant appeared to have been incurred in returning to the Republic of Korea after attending a private ceremony, and that it was difficult to recognize it as an injury for official duties.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review with the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee, but was dismissed on June 3, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 and the second ceremony constitute a public event in which he was under the control or management of the agency to which he belongs, and the Plaintiff is retired by the normal route and method after attending a public event.