상이등급구분 신체검사등외 판정처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On August 1, 1966, the Plaintiff entered the Navy (the monthly service period from July 8, 1967 to August 7, 1968) and was discharged from military service on May 31, 1969.
B. On December 27, 2002, the Plaintiff stated that he suffered from the left-hand retirement in the Vietnam War service, and applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on December 27, 2002. On May 16, 2003, the Veterans Examination Council decided on the recognition status as a requirement for a soldier or policeman wounded in action, but was judged to fall short of the disability rating standard in a new physical examination and reexamination.
C. In order to undergo a physical examination for re-verification, the Plaintiff applied for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State (application for a physical examination for re-verification) on January 5, 2015.
As a result of the review of the requirements of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement (hereinafter referred to as “the case’s wound”), the criteria for recognition of the person killed and wounded in action were resolved as a result of the review of the requirements, and the medical specialist in charge of physical examinations conducted accordingly showed opinions on class 7 of disability rating 4115. However, on October 28, 2015, it was confirmed on October 28, 2015 that there was no obstacle to the classification of the relevant data, such as the place of examination of the degree of merit as a result of the review of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, and the plaintiff was finally decided as “a person who
E. Based on the foregoing, on November 17, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he/she falls short of the disability rating standard.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's body was diagnosed by the doctor B as "the symptoms of the route to which he did not face are less severe than the upper part of the patient's body, and bring about significant inconvenience in daily life," but the plaintiff's body was taken as a result of misconception of the condition of the plaintiff's body and disposition below the grade standard.