1. On August 1, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of additional injury and disease resulting from occupational injury and extension of the period.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 8, 2011, while the Plaintiff served as a police officer on March 6, 1982, the Plaintiff is engaged in search for redevelopment area on July 8, 201.

다리를 삐끗하는 사고(이하 ‘이 사건 사고’라 한다)를 당하였다.

B. The Plaintiff was subject to the diagnosis of the “salvatum mar on the part of both sides slots (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) in the instant accident,” and obtained approval for medical care in the line of official duty.

From August 29, 2011 to December 4, 2011, the Plaintiff was receiving medical care as an injury or disease with the approval of the instant period from August 29 to December 4, 201. On October 10, 2011, at B Hospital Hospital’s hospital, the Plaintiff was subject to an anti-monthly bombing on the part of the steel-frames located on both sides of the entrance.

C. On July 5, 2016, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “damage to the side side sleeps of the sleeps, both sides slicks, and side slicks within the right slicks (hereinafter “instant additional injury”)” and applied for additional injury approval and extension of the period of medical care (from June 30, 2016 to October 18, 2016) to the Defendant.

On August 1, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision not to approve additional medical care and extension of the period of time for official duties (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The instant additional medical care is deemed to have occurred due to the recent credit on the TRI, and that there is an advice from the medical care advisory committee to the effect that it is irrelevant to the previous medical care approval branch.” As such, the Defendant appears to have granted non-approval of additional medical care and extension of the period of time from June 30, 2016 to October 18, 2016.”

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee, but the said request for review was dismissed on November 4, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the Plaintiff’s characteristics, age, etc., that should patrol the Plaintiff by 3-4 hours a day.