상이등급구분신체검사 등급판정처분 취소 청구
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
On May 9, 1952, the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) was discharged on June 20, 1957.
On November 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, the deceased’s spouse, asserted that “the deceased sustained a total wound on the left side of the Korean War,” and filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on November 4, 2014. On December 22, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision that the Plaintiff constituted the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “instant wounds”) to whom the deceased would have recognized “the deceased was killed and wounded in the course of the Korean War.”
On April 1, 2015, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement decided on April 1, 2015 to be below the criteria for disability ratings of the deceased, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the determination that the degree of disability of the deceased’s physical sacrifice does not meet the criteria for disability ratings prescribed in the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”).
Accordingly, on April 17, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for a physical reexamination for reexamination to the Defendant, but the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement passed a resolution on August 17, 2015 that it does not fall under the disability rating under the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”), and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Deceased was determined as non-applicable person
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on June 10, 2014, but was dismissed on April 22, 2016.
【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition is legitimate, based on the following facts: Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 (including family identification numbers) and the overall purport of the pleading, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition is legitimate.