국가유공자요건비해당결정취소
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 November 1, 197, the Plaintiff entered the Army as a soldier and served in the Army as a volunteer soldier, and was discharged from military service on July 24, 1980.
B. In around 1980 when the Plaintiff was serving in the military as a combat sports, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was real name on the left side of the body, and applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on January 10, 2012. On July 25, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision on the non-conformity of the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “pre-determined disposition”) on the ground that the debris in the left side diagnosed during the military service was not recognized to have been in line with the stable airspace.
C. On December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff did not dispute the preceding disposition with administrative litigation, etc., and again filed the same application for registration with the Defendant on the same basis. On August 20, 2013, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State on the ground that, in addition to the reasons for granting the previous disposition’s non-approval on August 30, 2013, the Plaintiff’s “defluorging lusium, propagation network fluorosis, chilling, modified body defluence,” as diagnosed in July 3, 2013 in the military service
(A) The Defendant decided that the Plaintiff did not constitute a person eligible for veteran’s compensation, and the Plaintiff does not seek revocation of this part in the instant lawsuit). [The grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, and each description of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 6, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 8-14 (including the serial number).
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff had a normal vision of the left eye at the time of entering the military, but his vision was reduced to 0.2 o.2 o.b. during military service, and his vision was almost lost in the process of expulsion.
The military hospital diagnosed the plaintiff's symptoms after external wounds as a burgical change, but in light of the medical level of the military hospital at the time, the military hospital did not discover the burgium which caused the real name, or entered the name of diagnosis as a burgical change in the sense of including the burgic.