1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition of some of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

After the second instance judgment of the first instance court, the “based on the fact that the case does not fall under the “public disease” as prescribed in Article 35(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act shall be added.

Part 2 of the judgment of the first instance court (based on recognition) No. 10 shall be added to the column.

Once the judgment of the first instance court is held, the first instance court’s order to “as specified below,” the first instance court’s order to “as specified in the second sentence 3 through 3 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7725, Feb. 5, 202).”

The term "official disease" in Article 35 of the Public Officials Pension Act refers to a disease caused by the official duty while performing the official duty, so there is a causal relationship between the official duty and the disease, and the causal relationship must be proved by the assertion of such causal relationship. The method and degree of proof must not be necessarily clearly proved by direct evidence, but it is sufficient if it is proved to the extent that proximate causal relation between the official duty and the accident can be inferred by indirect facts such as the health condition at the time of employment, the existence of an existing disease, the nature of the work and the working environment of the relevant public official, and the transfer of the same disease of another public official working in the same workplace, etc., based on the health and physical conditions of the relevant public official (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du753, Jun. 25, 2003). However, it is difficult to presume that there is a causal relationship immediately until the disease caused by excessive and stress in the course of performing the official duty, and the cause of its outbreak and aggravation is not revealed (see, Supreme Court Decision 2013Du53, Jun. 253, etc.