1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a police officer on January 11, 1997, and served as the 112 comprehensive situation room in B police agencies from December 5, 2012 to March 31, 2016.

B. On February 24, 2016, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by C Hospital with the “bruptive (defluent) and pathic (defluent (defluent)” (hereinafter “the instant injury”). Around that time, the Plaintiff applied for the medical care for the instant injury and disease on official duty to the Defendant.

C. However, on January 2, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition that did not approve the Plaintiff’s application for approval of medical care for official duties (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the proximate causal relation with the instant regular branch cannot be recognized.

On June 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee against the instant disposition, but the request for review was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff was exposed to overtime noise while working in the 112 comprehensive situation room, and suffered from overwork and stress due to overtime work, week, and night shift work, etc., and as a result, the injury and disease of this case occurred. Therefore, a proximate causal relation is acknowledged between the injury and the Plaintiff’s performance of official duties.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case made on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) As the relevant legal doctrine refers to a disease or injury caused by an official duty while performing official duties, “a disease or injury” under Article 35(1) of the former Public Officials Pension Act (wholly amended by Act No. 15523, Mar. 20, 2018) refers to a disease or injury caused by the official duty, there should be proximate causal relation between the official duty and the disease or injury, and such causal relation should be proved by the assertion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Du47878, Sept. 21, 2017). Meanwhile, whether causation exists is an average person.