국가유공자비해당결정처분취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The defendant bears the total costs of the lawsuit after the filing of the appeal.
purport, purport, and.
1. Details of the disposition of the case;
A. On October 6, 2003, the Plaintiff entered the Gun and was discharged from office on October 5, 2005.
B. On October 3, 2004, the Plaintiff: (a) served as a telecommunications soldier after entering the military; and (b) in a state of mental disability caused by the while on-the-spot, the Plaintiff checked the communications line on October 3, 2004; (c) filed an application for the registration of persons of distinguished services to the State with respect to the Defendant by applying for the registration of persons of distinguished services to the State with respect to the disabled on May 19, 2009, by asserting that it is difficult to maintain a normal life because there exists a pain, pressure, and respiratory difficulties due to a plesy after being discharged from the military.
C. On August 13, 2009, the defendant was suffering from scarcity treatment before the plaintiff was admitted, and in 2002, the plaintiff was suffering from pharmacologic treatment for six months as tuberculosis, the plaintiff's injury and disease appears to be a pre-entry disease, and it is difficult to recognize the relation between the plaintiff's chest and military duty in medical advisory, and it is "the disposition of this case" to the effect that it does not meet the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State.
A. [No dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1, 3, Eul evidence No. 2-1, 2]
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although the Plaintiff’s assertion was treated with the scarcity and tuberculosis before entering the military, it was completely improved at the time of entering the military, and the scars that occurred during the military service were repeated or aggravated due to training and performance of duties, and thus, the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case under a different premise is unlawful, notwithstanding the fact that there is a proximate causal relation with the performance of duties in the military. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the scars claimed by the Plaintiff were the disease that occurred before entering the military or that occurred by the internal scars of the Plaintiff without any special reason.