국가유공자 및 보훈보상대상자 비해당 결정처분 취소
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 1, 2017, the Plaintiff was in the Army so-called, and performed a surgery after undergoing a cancer diagnosis on January 2018, and was discharged from active service on May 31, 2018 (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s major”).
B. The Plaintiff asserted that “from the end of July 2017 in the military service, the right line was treated at the Armed Forces CT shooting on August 22, 2017, the Plaintiff, upon receiving the determination of Machip infection and perforum infection, provided that he/she had performed a surgery after being judged to be Machip infection and perforum infection, but he/she did not have any symptoms even after being given treatment at a private hospital on January 25, 2018 as a result of receiving a medical treatment by a private hospital,” and on June 25, 2018, he/she applied for registration of “Machip” to the Defendant as a person of distinguished service to the State.
C. Upon deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered a decision on October 11, 2018 on the grounds that it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s cancer occurred due to the Plaintiff’s performance of duties, etc. or that it is difficult to be considered that the Plaintiff rapidly aggravated above the level of natural progress due to the Plaintiff’s performance of duties.
(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case") d.
The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition and the relevant decision that did not correspond to the requirements of persons rendering distinguished services to the State. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed all the Plaintiff’s petition for administrative appeal on January 15, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was immediately reported to the military unit to which the Plaintiff was affiliated, while serving in the military, and the military unit had the Plaintiff receive medical treatment at the Armed Forces Goyang Hospital. However, although the medical personnel at the Armed Forces Goyang Hospital was able to fully discover the cT images of the Plaintiff, the medical personnel at the Armed Forces Goyang Hospital could have discovered the cT images of the Plaintiff’s disease by wrong diagnosis of the Plaintiff’s disease due to the crymatitis that is irrelevant to the crypumum