logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.08.25 2019구단57063
공무상요양불승인처분취소
Text

On July 10, 2018, the defendant revoked the disposition of non-approval of medical care for the plaintiff on official duties.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 1, 1993, while being appointed as a fire-fighting officer and engaged in fire-fighting, etc., the Plaintiff (B) was diagnosed as luminous cancer around April 13, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”). On August 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care approval with the Defendant for the instant injury and disease in the line of duty.

B. On July 10, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision to grant medical care exemption approval for official duties (hereinafter the instant disposition) based on the results of the deliberation by the Public Official Pension Benefit Council (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground of the following: “The instant injury and disease is difficult to be deemed as a result of the Plaintiff’s performance of duties in view of the medical characteristics of the instant injury and disease, and there is no clear occupational relationship with the cancer that occurred in the field of fire, and the details of duties cannot be inferred that there was continuous and intensive work that deviates from ordinary and ordinary scope, and it is difficult to presume that the instant injury and disease were related to the Plaintiff’s duties.”

C. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit after filing a request for review with the Public Official Accident Compensation Pension Committee.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 23, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Whether there exists a proximate causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s duties as fire-fighting officials in the instant superior branch and the Plaintiff’s duties.

Judgment

(1) Article 35(1) of the former Public Officials Pension Act (wholly amended by Act No. 15523, Mar. 20, 2018 and enforced from September 20, 2018) refers to a disease arising out of official duties, which is a requirement for the payment of expenses incurred in performing public duties. As such, “official disease” refers to a disease arising out of official duties, which is a requirement for the payment of expenses incurred in performing public duties. Therefore, there should be causation between official duties and the disease,

arrow