상이처일부인정거부처분취소
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke below shall be revoked.
Defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On March 6, 2012, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on July 22, 2013 after he/she suffered an accident during shooting training conducted on July 10, 2012 (hereinafter “instant accident”).
B. On July 31, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident was different in terms of “multi-level Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Ma, the left-hand Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Ma
C. On January 7, 2014, after deliberation and resolution pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State and Article 2 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “the Act on Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation”), the Defendant determined that “non-defensive and anti-defensive and anti-defensive” falls under the requirements of Article 4(1)6 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, and determined that the “non-defensive and anti-defensive and anti-defensive” falls under the requirements of Article 4(1)6 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State. The Defendant issued a disposition that did not recognize that the Defendant is different on the ground that the remaining “Freshive and anti-defensive and anti-defensive” does not fall under the requirements of Article 4(1)6 of the said Act.
The Plaintiff raised an objection against the Defendant’s disposition as of January 7, 2014, and the Defendant, after further deliberation, determined that the “Type 1 (Sale) in the Complex M&D Co., Ltd.,” constituted the requirements of Article 4(1)6 (U.S.) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, and recognized the Plaintiff as a wounded person. However, the Plaintiff’s remaining “the two M&D Co., Ltd., after the collision of the two M&D, and the two M&D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the two M&D”), did not recognize the difference as a wounded person by maintaining the decision of the disposition as of January 7, 2014.