국가유공자비해당결정처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of “judgment on the plaintiff’s assertion of the trial,” under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, citing this as is, pursuant to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.
2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the trial
A. Although it can be known that the number of rI or CT escape symptoms occurred during the military service taken by the Plaintiff’s asserted military hospital, and that the number of rupture satisfies worse due to the military service, it is unreasonable for the Defendant to take the instant disposition.
B. Determination 1) According to the records in Gap evidence 7 and Eul evidence 3, and the results of the medical record appraisal about the head of the court of first instance and the head of the Incheon University University Hospital, it is recognized that the plaintiff was diagnosed by the military hospital in the military service of this case, that is, the "propon escape certificate (the 4-5 summary and the 5 summary-1000)" and the "proponed evidence". However, in order for the plaintiff to be recognized as a soldier or policeman as a soldier or policeman pursuant to the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State and the Veterans Compensation Act, there is a proximate causal relation between the performance of duties or education and training during the military service and the occurrence or aggravation of each of the wounds in this case, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff was dead, and it cannot be viewed that each of the instant cases was caused or aggravated due to the occurrence of education and training merely because the plaintiff was different from the duty of the Park Ge-Seun military unit.
Rather, the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, i.e., the Plaintiff suffered from pains even before entering the military hospital, and the Plaintiff himself said that “a golf from the first year to the first year to the point of view was unreasonable, and there was a negative signboard escape certificate.”