국가유공자요건비해당결정취소
1. The Defendant’s decision on June 10, 201 to the Plaintiff is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff entered on April 25, 1996 and discharged the Plaintiff from active service on June 24, 1998.
B. On August 196, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State on April 5, 2012, alleging that he/she had been diagnosed on both sides of the mouth in the National Armed Forces Goyang Hospital on September 2, 1996 by asserting that he/she had been diagnosed on September 2, 1996 due to shocking the left side of the combat of the winter, and that he/she had been applying for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that there was no proximate causal relation with military duties or education and training on December 13, 2012.
C. On April 23, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation under this Court 2013Gudan936, and the Defendant, upon the recommendation of the relevant full bench, made a decision on the relevant requirements for soldier or policeman on duty regarding the Plaintiff’s instant wounds.
Accordingly, on May 28, 2014, the Plaintiff received a physical examination at the Central Veterans Hospital on May 28, 2014. On June 10, 2014, the Defendant determined that the instant wound did not meet the grade criteria and determined the amount equivalent to the expense of a person of distinguished service to the State.
(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s argument is that the Plaintiff’s wound of this case is not more than 2 centimeters in a fluence, and thus, it constitutes class 6-2(2) and 2407 stipulated in the Enforcement Decree and Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State”). However, the Defendant’s existence of an antisive organization is limited to class 7-2411 (former class 7-2411; hereinafter the same shall apply) premised on the existence of an antisive organization, and there is no antisive organization in the instant wounds solely on