1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On June 1, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition of non-approval of medical care for official duties against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s husband B (hereinafter “the deceased”) served as a fire-fighting official and was dispatched to the Safety and Security Group in Seoul (hereinafter “the Organizing Committee in this case”) from January 19, 201 to the Safety and Security Group in Seoul, and received medical treatment at H Hospital from March 18, 201 to April 2, 201 due to depression, etc. while serving as a disaster-prevention official, and was in charge of its duties at the Gneological Academy from March 18, 201 to April 2, 201, at the Seoul National University Hospital from March 28, 2011 and from April 5, 201 to May 7, 2011, and from the Seoul National University Hospital from May 17, 2011 to the Jeonnam National University Hospital from May 18, 201.

B. On April 1, 201, the Deceased, who was assigned to the Organizing Committee in the instant case, committed suicide on the trees located in the J Apartment-ro, J Apartment-ro, 201, on May 25, 201, when the Deceased moved his workplace to a wood prisoner of war after having been assigned to I by the Jeonnam-do Fire Headquarters, and was under hospital treatment for treatment, such as depression, etc. from April 6, 2011.

C. On May 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for approval of medical care for official duties with the name of the injury or disease of the deceased’s “complication due to highly stress (hereinafter “the instant injury or disease”). However, following deliberation by the Public Official Pension Benefit Council, the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant medical care for official duties on June 1, 2012 on the ground that “it is difficult to deem that there is a considerable causal relationship between the applicant injury or disease and the official duties.”

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【Disposition of this case’s ground for recognition of this case’s existence of no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 3, Eul’s 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. After the Plaintiff’s assertion was appointed as E, the Deceased mainly performed the duties such as fire rescue and emergency squad civil service in a fire station within the jurisdiction, and was dispatched from January 19, 201 to March 31, 201 to the Safety Group of the Organizing Committee, and became a public official in charge of disaster prevention as a public official.

The Deceased shall commence his duties as a public official in charge of preventing disasters completely and in its existing duties.