국가유공자요건비해당결정취소
1. On December 26, 2012, the Defendant’s decision that constitutes a person of distinguished service to the State was revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a noncommissioned officer who was appointed to the Army on October 25, 1975 and was retired from office on March 31, 2012.
On April 25, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) received an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the grounds that “the scambling of the scambling of the scambling, the pressure pressure scambling and the vertebrate separation from spine due to the abortion during the military service; (b) the scambling of the scam in the ice area among the scambling armed forces around March 4, 2010; and (c) the preparation for the scambling of the scambling of the scambling of the scambling military forces on June 7, 2010.”
B. On December 26, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision to be disqualified as a person of distinguished service to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the pressure frame and vertebral ebrate (No. 5 in summary)”, “vertebrate flick (No. 4-5 in summary, No. 4-5 in summary) and conical sponsing (No. 5-insponsed No. 1 in summary, the 5-insponsing trend), sponsing sponsing sponsing sponsing sponsing to the left, and high pressure is not found to have proximate causal relation with the performance of official duties, and the sponsing sponsing chronic instability
The above difference is referred to as "each difference in this case," and "the disposition of determining whether a person is a person of distinguished service to the State" is referred to as "the disposition in this case."
1) The grounds for the judgment of the court below are as follows: (a) the facts without any dispute over the grounds for the judgment; (b) the statements in Gap evidence and Eul evidence No. 1
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Although the difference between the Plaintiff’s assertion and the instant assertion is deemed to have a proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s performance of official duties on the following grounds, the instant disposition on a different premise should be revoked as it is unlawful.
1) The Plaintiff, at around June 197, was under pressured pressured pressured and vertebrate separation (No. 5), who transported concrete materials in the course of the incidental reward, dusted area construction work, and was under pressured pressured by the mobile safety board (the collapse of the stairs launch board and the fallscopic accident).