1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, such as admitting the judgment, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except to supplement or add the judgment as follows 2. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

2. Supplement and addition of judgments;

A. The defendant asserts that the accident of this case does not constitute an accident on official duty since the plaintiff's retirement does not immediately return home without returning home, and the act of leaving home has already been terminated by deducting meals, as a matter of principle, public relations of the accident of this case is denied, and special circumstances such as the plaintiff's meal is in extension of the period of leaving home, etc.

However, as determined by the first instance judgment cited by this Court, even if the Plaintiff left the restaurant located in the nearest route at the time of 21:00 hours after the Plaintiff’s work and provided meals together with the club fees, the instant accident is not an accident involving meals, but it is not confirmed that the circumstances to deem that the instant accident was caused by the wind to provide meals, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident falls under an accident that occurred while the Plaintiff left the restaurant due to ordinary route and method.

The defendant's argument is without merit.

B. In addition, the defendant asserts that the accident in this case occurred after the retirement of the plaintiff was terminated by passing through the entrance of the house in this case where the plaintiff had his residence, and thus does not constitute an accident on official duty.

In light of the size, structure, and use status of the instant house as determined by the first instance judgment cited by this Court, the private area controlled and managed by the Plaintiff is limited to the part of 401 out of the instant house, not the entire instant house. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem the instant accident to have occurred prior to the expiration of the Plaintiff’s retirement.