국가유공자요건비해당결정취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought the revocation of the determination that the Defendant was not a person of distinguished service to the State and the determination that was not a person of distinguished service to the State. The first instance court dismissed the part seeking revocation of the determination that was not a person of distinguished service to the State, and cited the part seeking revocation of the determination that was not a person of distinguished service to the State. Accordingly, the court’s judgment is limited to the part seeking revocation of the determination that was not a person of distinguished service
2. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as stated in paragraph (3). The Defendant’s additional assertion in this court is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the determination as stated in paragraph (4). Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Parts to be dried;
A. The 7th judgment of the court of first instance was followed by the following: the 10th to 17th judgment was followed.
In May 28, 2010, the deceased had an interview with a major medical officer belonging to the relevant hospital, and the relevant medical officer was “a certificate of fix personality disorder and adaptation disorder.” The deceased was given primary medical treatment at the mental department of the Japanese military hospital, and there was a need to observe the suspected mental and behavioral disorder, and there was a need to resume after his/her early departure from the hospital. However, as a result of an additional interview with the deceased on or around June 2010, the major medical officer belonging to the deceased tried to observe the future progress without having the deceased undergo additional medical treatment, on the ground that the degree of adaptation to the life of the deceased is gradually becoming more and more.”
B. Part 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 9th to 10th have been followed as follows.
On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s return to the unit after the deceased’s return to the unit on May 2010.