손해배상
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 reasons why the court of the first instance as to this case shall be stated are as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the plaintiff's assertion that has been repeated at the trial of the court of first instance, the corresponding part of the reasons for the first instance judgment is stated.
It shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion has continued to remain in the right arms without any physical change from the time when he was injured on duty since 1968 while serving in the military to the present day.
After the Plaintiff’s proposal, the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, which was applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on June 10, 2003, but the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, under the Defendant, did not accept the application as a result of the determination below the grade criteria on February 24, 2006, following the first and second rulings on December 5, 201.
If a close inspection or legitimate examination of the plaintiff was conducted from the beginning, a public official under the jurisdiction of the defendant issued a first and second judgment that failed to meet or fall short of the current grade standards due to negligence in performing duties in good faith, although he/she could have been judged the same as the present.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 22,8480,000 won for veterans' benefits that the plaintiff had not been paid due to such unlawful act.
3. In order to recognize a State’s liability for compensation, a public official’s intentional or negligent act is necessary and negligence is ordinarily required.
Even upon examining all evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, no evidence can be found to recognize that a public official in charge of each judgment rendered by the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs under the Defendant violated his/her duty of care and duty of care normally and intentionally.
The Plaintiff’s claim is difficult to accept.
4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.
In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is the same.