1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 24, 2015, the Plaintiff was a person working as the director of B police station female youth division, and on the Defendant on August 24, 2015, and on July 14:0, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for the approval of medical treatment for official duties in relation to the instant injury and disease, on the following grounds: “The Plaintiff was diagnosed as the head of B police station’s female youth division, and was diagnosed as the Defendant on July 22, 2015 by entering the left-hand part of the right shoulder while moving into the left-hand part of the B police station’s department division, and continued to receive the pain, and was diagnosed as the full ion of the opening of the visit to C hospital on July 29, 2015 (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”).

B. On October 14, 2015, the Defendant: (a) against the Plaintiff, the instant injury occurred during the course of moving the Plaintiff to the left by making it difficult to view that the instant injury or disease was derived from the opportunity to perform the above duties; (b) as a result of the submitted MRI reading reading, it cannot be deemed that the cause of the instant injury or disease was a new or substantially aggravated causal relation with the Plaintiff’s official duties, on the grounds that the cause is known that there was a change of happiness, a decrease of blood transfusions around the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the year, and a repetitive injury. However, in light of the medical characteristics of the relevant disease, it is difficult to view that the instant injury or disease was caused by the opportunity to perform the duties as seen above; and (c) as a result of the submitted MRI reading reading reading, it cannot be deemed that there was a proximate causal causal relation between the Plaintiff’s official duties.

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

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion on July 22, 2015.