국가유공자등록거부처분등취소
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 grounds for this part of the disposition are as stated in the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for a partial modification as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
After "The plaintiff in the second fifth parallel ", June 13, 2005, applied for a request to the defendant for the registration of the deceased as a person of distinguished service to the State", and received a rejection disposition from the defendant on January 10, 2006, again, the plaintiff added "................
The second through 7 acts referred to as "the disposition of refusal of registration and the disposition of refusal of registration of bereaved family members of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter "the disposition in this case")" shall be construed as "the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter "the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State") and the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation (hereinafter "the Act on Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation")".
The second 12-13 of the Act is added to the [based grounds for recognition] “each entry of the evidence of heading A 14 through 17 (including numbers),” respectively.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The part concerning the Plaintiff’s assertion is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
C. The instant disposition is accurately divided into “a non-competent decision-making disposition by a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State” and “a non-competent decision-making disposition by a person eligible for veteran’s compensation,” and thus, this case’s disposition is successively examined.
A) Whether a disposition of non-existence of a person who rendered distinguished service to the State is legitimate