국가유공자등록거부처분취소
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 July 23, 1977, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she entered the Army and was discharged from military service on April 17, 1980, and that he/she caused “patatitis due to an outdoor colon’s tent” (hereinafter “the instant wounds”) during military service, and filed an application for registration with the Defendant on July 12, 201.
B. On February 16, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision that the Plaintiff constitutes a person subject to the requirements for the military support and support of persons, etc. of distinguished services to the State (amended by Act No. 11041, Sept. 15, 2011; hereinafter “the Act”) pursuant to Article 73-2(1) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the Act”), on the ground that “No evidence exists to prove the wounds caused by an accident caused by an accident in the course of performing official duties, and the Plaintiff is identified to have been injured due to an accident in the course of performing his/her duty, taking into account the fact that the Plaintiff was a person under compulsory service.”
On February 20, 2012, the Plaintiff was served with the instant disposition.
C. After that, the Plaintiff underwent a physical examination to determine a disability rating on March 8, 2012, and the Defendant, on March 12, 2012, determined the Plaintiff’s disability rating as Class 6-2(43) and notified the Plaintiff.
On April 19, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on March 12, 2012, seeking “the revocation of the disposition rejecting persons who rendered distinguished services to the State” against the Plaintiff on March 12, 2012, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on September 19, 2012.
After that, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 17, 2012.
[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 8, 9, and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since it was filed after the lapse of the filing period.