On May 17, 2018, the defendant's disposition of non-approval of part of the medical care for official duties rendered to the plaintiff on May 17, 2018.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 4, 2017, the Plaintiff (B) was a police official, after completing a night duty site inspection at the C Police Center, and was faced with a pedestrian crossing in front of the name school Station while leaving the school (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. On March 2018, the Plaintiff applied for the approval of injury to the left-hand body in the line of official duties for the following reasons: “Around March 2018, the Plaintiff applied for damage to the string of the chest, the knee’s knee’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne’ss kne, the kne’s knife’s knife’s kne that had no room in the open two sides, the 3-4 conical signboard escape certificate between the 5-6th parallel and the 5-6th parallel mick escape certificate, the 6-7th conical signboard escape certificate, the 4-5th conical signboard’s kne’s kne’s kne’s kne, the left-hand body’s g.”

C. On May 17, 2018, the Defendant approved the Plaintiff’s medical care on the ground that there is no causal link with the official duties with respect to the Plaintiff’s damage on the part of the left-hand slots, (i) 4-5 conical signboard escape certificate, (ii) 6-7 conical typtiontion certificate, (iii) the part on the left-hand shoulder part of the power line, and (iv) the part on the left-hand shouldered part, and (v) the damage on the part of the upper-hand slots inside the slots pipe (hereinafter “each of this case’s injury”). The Defendant approved the medical care for the remainder of the injury on official duty (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On August 30, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee, but the Plaintiff’s request for examination was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is on the left side of play on the Aquatic Vehicle, which was shown on his own as at the time of the instant accident.