보훈급여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The court's explanation concerning this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to additional determination as to the plaintiff's assertion under paragraph (2) below, and therefore, it cites it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 42
(2) The court of first instance that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on February 2, 201 is justifiable in determining the Plaintiff’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion in the court of first instance is not significantly different from the Plaintiff’s assertion in the court of first instance; (b)
A. At the time of the preparation of the instant written consent, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant written consent was invalid pursuant to Article 104 of the Civil Act, as a juristic act that has considerably lost fairness due to poverty, rashness, or inexperience, and that the instant written consent was invalid under Article 104 of the Civil Act.
However, in light of the circumstances of the following subparagraphs 1 through 3, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was engaged in a juristic act which has remarkably lost fairness with old-age, rashness, or in experience by preparing the consent of this case only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 15 (including each number), and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion based on this premise is without merit.
① At the time when G public officials in charge received the instant consent form from the Plaintiff, G was in charge at the Plaintiff’s head-nam D also.
[A] There is no dispute. G, at the time, had shown the instant consent to the Plaintiff and D, was directly signed and sealed by the Plaintiff, and made a concrete and clear statement about the details of the preparation.
[Defendant G’s Witness G of this Court] Although D did not have any knowledge about KRW 53 million, D’s written consent of this case would receive KRW 12 million per month after receiving KRW 12 million.