장해등급결정처분취소
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 March 6, 1982, the Plaintiff served as a police official on his/her duty and retired on June 30, 2010.
On July 2, 2010, on the ground that the Plaintiff was injured due to a sudden accident during the retirement around 14:00 on July 31, 1997, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on July 2, 2010, and thereafter filed the same application twice thereafter. The Defendant rendered a decision that all of them meet the requirements for official duty, but the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation on November 13, 201 on the disposition of refusal to provide distinguished service to the State on September 20, 201, and partly won the final winning judgment on April 11, 2015.
Accordingly, on May 13, 2015, the Board of Patriots and Veterans made a decision that the Plaintiff's protruding escape certificate (No. 5-6 in the border 5-6 and the vertebrate No. 4-5 in the instant award) meets the requirements for soldier or policeman on duty (hereinafter "the instant award").
B. Accordingly, on July 24, 2015, the Defendant conducted a new physical examination for the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 6-3 and 6-4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State”). As a result, the Plaintiff obtained a disability rating under [Attachment Table 4] 7-802 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 984, Jun. 29, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) and received the same rating on October 28, 2015.
C. On February 11, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for a reexamination again, and received a decision of Grade 7 and Grade 802 again, and the Defendant issued the instant disposition on February 15, 2016, which notified the Plaintiff of a change in the results of the reexamination.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, No. 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is in accordance with Article 8-3 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service
8. Rabal movements and honds, where the entire spine, as set forth in class 3 class 83 of the disability rating with respect to physical disabilities, is strong or bended.