Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 1, 199, the Plaintiff was appointed as a civilian military employee, and carried out the maintenance and repair of public sick equipment as a facility mechanic (Grade 9).
B. At around 11:30 on August 5, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval of medical treatment for official duties with the Defendant, asserting that “In order to enter the repair plant due to the damage of the quizzbs to the right side of the locker in the intersection, the Plaintiff, along with three commercial parties, B, etc., tried to drive a slope plate in the Trecing engine with three gates, and the gate was cut off, replaced with a new slope, and then cut off the locker engine, and then changed to a new slope, she was diagnosed as the “surgical signboard nuclear escape certificate between the trends No. 4-5 (hereinafter “the instant injury”). As a result, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval of medical treatment for official duties with the Defendant, asserting that “The proximate causal relation between the above branches of official duties is recognized.”
C. On December 24, 2010, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval for medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The instant injury and disease appears to have occurred due to the change of recidivism,” on the ground that “The medical records of C Hospital (hereinafter “LBP Lt glst 4,5 years”) is written as “LBP Lt glst 4,5 years,” and that it is confirmed that there was a long time disease, and that it appears that the instant injury and disease were due to the change of recidivism,” in light of the results of MRI reading reading, etc.
On February 10, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for review under Article 80 of the Public Officials Pension Act with the Public Officials Pension Benefit Review Committee, but was dismissed on April 5, 2011.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence, Gap 8-11 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Most of the mid-term equipment used by the Plaintiff for the maintenance work has deteriorated in the 1980s to 1990s.