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 July 16, 1980, the deceased’s spouse B (CB, hereinafter “the deceased”) was appointed as a civilian military employee and performed the work of application guidance, inspection, tactical guidance, etc. at the Army Information Team, etc.

From January 12, 2009 to June 30, 201, the Deceased performed the duties of classifying, arranging, and keeping maps at the survey site of the Army Spatial Data Center and the High Data Center (hereinafter referred to as “survey site and High Data Center”). From July 1, 2011, the Deceased performed satellite image processing duties, etc. from the National Defense Information Center Collection Support Agency D, etc. In particular, from April 1, 201 to December 31, 2013, the Deceased primarily performed the aerial film shooting duties.

B. The Deceased continued to receive medical treatment by July 3, 2014, with a maram from July 7, 2009.

On July 22, 2014, the Deceased was diagnosed as dead cancer and died on July 21, 2015.

C. On July 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for compensation for survivors of public officials who died on duty with respect to the Defendant on July 28, 2016, alleging that the Deceased was exposed to cancer for a long time in the course of performing the aerial film grasing duties

However, the Defendant did not have any basis to acknowledge that the deceased was exposed to cancer in the course of performing official duties, and thus, the deceased’s private death does not constitute a disease due to official duties. Therefore, on November 30, 2016, the Defendant determined the compensation for survivors of public officials who died on duty on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the deceased’s death and his official duties,

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee, but the said Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on April 11, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 6, part of Gap evidence No. 3, fact-finding results against the head of the defense information division of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. This.