1. On April 25, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of medical care for official duties rendered to the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 1, 2008, the Plaintiff was specially recruited as a civilian military employee of Grade 10 on military service and served as a volunteer in the Armed Forces B (hereinafter “instant military unit”) from around that time.

B. On May 11, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) diagnosed as the field of the back-to-face collision and the part of the back-to-face ion fever, the genetic reciting heat, the right-side reciting infection, and the right-side air conditioners (hereinafter “the injury”). There is a proximate causal relation between the injury branch of the instant case and the Plaintiff’s official duties as the Plaintiff’s employee. On March 31, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval of medical care for the injury and disease of this case on official duties with the Defendant on March 31, 2016.

C. On April 25, 2016, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that “this case’s injury and disease appears to be a bruptal path, and there is no proximate causal relation between official duties and the injury and disease” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On June 9, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed to the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee, but was dismissed on August 30, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 10, 12, Eul evidence 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff had already worked as an employee in the instant military unit, and performed 2 hours to 3 hours per day.

When the plaintiff performs e-operation, he will take a e-mail and 90 degrees from the right side of the species. At this time, the plaintiff's obligation has been continuously borne on the plaintiff's right shoulder.

Furthermore, when the plaintiff, alone, takes full charge of the removal of more than 350 unit members, and in particular, when the military unit of this case is exercised, such as various censorship, the number of times of the removal increased.

As such, the plaintiff was in a special working environment where it is impossible to avoid the emuliation despite the emuliation.