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 September 6, 201, the Plaintiff was a public official belonging to the Construction Disaster Prevention Bureau B of Daegu Metropolitan City, and on the left-hand two fluoral typosis, the “brain color” occurred around the upper-hand fluoral typ

B. On October 12, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for medical treatment related to brain color on official duties, but the Defendant issued a non-approval disposition on November 15, 201.

On January 31, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation, and the judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim (Supreme Court Decision 2012Gudan1153 Decided December 14, 2012) became final and conclusive, and the Defendant issued a disposition to approve medical treatment for official duties for two years from September 6, 2011 to September 5, 2013, which is the date of occurrence of the Plaintiff’s brain color.

C. On September 5, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the period of medical care by September 5, 2014 in the line of official duty by approving the name and two of the post-explosion in brain color as an additional injury and injury to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant approved the extension of the period of medical care for 180 days until March 4, 2014, on the ground that the second name is irrelevant to brain color, and that the second name is not an independent disease but a mere symptoms that occur frequently in the process of brain color treatment.

On the other hand, the plaintiff did not raise an administrative dispute.

On March 3, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the extension of the period of medical care for performing official duties for an additional one year (from March 5, 2014 to March 4, 2015).

Accordingly, on February 8, 2014, the Defendant read the video of the computer screen photography (CT), taken on February 8, 2014, that the doctor reads that the opinion was “not observed.” The period for which the Plaintiff applied for extension appears to be the period for treating “the name” and “the body” not approved as an additional disease in the line of official duty. Accordingly, on March 20, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-approval for extension of the period of medical care for official duties.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). [Ground for recognition] Gap 1.