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 entered on October 9, 1997, but was discharged from active service on July 27, 1998. From March 31, 2004 to October 28, 2010, the Plaintiff maintained the qualification for the national pension area or workplace subscriber (the partial period of suspension) and the national pension area or workplace subscriber from November 29, 201 to November 29, 201.

B. On November 26, 2018, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay a disability pension on the ground that “Maternology (hereinafter “Maternology”) was a disability injury.”

Accordingly, on December 21, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision that the Plaintiff was entitled to a disability pension (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the disease or injury that caused the Plaintiff’s disability was incurred during the subscription to the National Pension Scheme, and that the first diagnosis date of the instant injury was not recognized during the subscription to the National Pension Scheme on April 3, 1998.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the request for examination against the Defendant, but was dismissed on April 18, 2019 for the same reason as the instant disposition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is due to the fact that the Plaintiff’s medical record of Seoul National University Hospital was diagnosed on April 3, 1998, which was submitted by the Plaintiff. The record of the above medical record is submitted by the Defendant’s strong pressure and intimidation, and its admissibility is not admissible, and thus, the instant disposition based on such evidence is unlawful.

B. The Administrative Litigation Act 1 does not provide for the exclusion of admissibility of illegally collected evidence, and the Civil Procedure Act applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act does not provide for the exclusion of admissibility of evidence, and the defendant is a defendant through substantial weapons by granting a prosecutor the duty of truth and guaranteeing the defendant's right to receive assistance