국가유공자(보훈보상대상자)비해당 처분 취소
1. On August 30, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision that constitutes a non-conformity of the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation against the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 20, 2011, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on June 13, 2012, when serving in the sixth Class B of the Military Service, and was discharged from military service on June 2012.
B. On September 19, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State, on the ground that “The Plaintiff applied for the following: (a) Madle Madle Madle Madle Madle Madle Madle, Madle Madle Madle Madle Madle,
C. On March 14, 2013, following the deliberation of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff on March 14, 2013 on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation with the military performance of official duties. D. The Defendant rendered a decision on the eligibility of a person who
On April 5, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted additional data and filed an application for reexamination. However, on August 30, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision on the amount of non-conformity with the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”), on the ground that the Plaintiff was sick before entering the military and was unable to verify the external trauma of the instant wounds, and thus, there is no proximate causal relation between the injury and the military performance of official duties.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including provisional number), Eul evidence 1 through 6, 15, and 18, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was taking unreasonable action before entering the hospital and continued training after receiving only formal treatment from the military hospital, even though the Plaintiff was on the right shoulder in the course of the new training process due to unreasonable PRI training on July 6, 201, while the Plaintiff was undergoing unreasonable PRI training on the right shoulder.
After that, the plaintiff moved into his own hospital and performed an operation on October 4, 201 at the private hospital.