국가유공자요건비해당결정취소등
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff entered the Army on May 3, 1975 and discharged the Plaintiff from military service on April 30, 2008.
On May 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that, on April 3, 2001, the Plaintiff suffered excessive performance of military service while serving in the Defendant and the traffic accidents shocking to the bus after receiving the meal cost for the staff members from the bank at around 10:00 (hereinafter “instant accidents”) and returned to the original state (hereinafter “instant accidents”), and the Plaintiff caused the occurrence of the “porizontal signboard escape, the cover-down escape certificate, and the compromise” (hereinafter “application injury”).
On April 13, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision on the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the injury applied to the Plaintiff was caused by the performance of military duties or education and training, or that the development was rapidly
(hereinafter referred to as "disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff asserted that, while serving in the military as a result of the performance of duties, the instant accident was caused or aggravated due to its occurrence, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.
B. In order to recognize “an injury during education and training or performance of duty (including illness in the line of duty)” as referred to in Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, there should be a proximate causal relation between the education and training or performance of duty and the injury and disease, and the causal relation should be attested
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du3188, Nov. 26, 2015). With only evidence Nos. 2-5 (including a provisional number), it is insufficient to recognize that an applicant’s disease was caused by military service or that an existing disease was aggravated beyond the natural progress, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Rather, according to the result of this court's entrustment of examination of medical records to the Ansan University Hospital.