상이등급결정취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of determining a disability rating rendered to the Plaintiff on May 29, 2014 is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On July 31, 1967, the Plaintiff’s husband B entered the Navy, and was transferred to the Navy on December 1, 1968, and on November 30, 197, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on December 31, 1997. The Plaintiff died on December 31, 1997.
(hereinafter referred to as “the person”) B. B
On May 1, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for a person of distinguished service to the State to the Defendant on the ground that “A high person, who was at anchor on September 21, 1972, while working in the military, was spunched and was fright away from snow,” and the Defendant made a decision on the person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that he was spunched, and that he was spicked, and that he fell under the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State, on June 13, 2013.”
C. On July 24, 2013, the Defendant: (a) notified the Plaintiff on July 24, 2013 that the Plaintiff was determined as Grade 7, 115, rather than the “real name,” on the ground that “the Plaintiff was determined as Grade 7, 115, on the ground that the Plaintiff had no knowledge and medical record about the deceased; (b) only mentions about the vision and the vision room immediately after the instant accident; and (c) did not mention the most important vision in the disability rating determination; (d) on the ground that there was an external trauma and continued to have been maintained due to external wounds after the surgery; and (e) notified that the Plaintiff was determined as Grade 7, 115 in the physical examination on May 29, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”); and (e) the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit (hereinafter “instant disposition”); and (e) filed the instant lawsuit.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 9, Eul evidence 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion constitutes not only a simple white paper, but also a melting paper, which led to the occurrence of a melting paper, and thus, it constitutes class 6 (1) 1112, and thus, the defendant's disposition against it is against this.