공상공무원 결정처분 취소
1. The Defendant’s decision on December 29, 2016 against the Plaintiff was revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The plaintiff was appointed as a civilian military employee of the Navy on July 16, 199, and was dismissed from office at Grade 8 of the Military Affairs Administration on December 31, 2005.
B. On April 28, 2014, the Plaintiff suffered from wounds, such as high spawn, etc. while serving in the military, and applied for registration to the Defendant for distinguished service to the State.
C. On August 14, 2014, the Defendant decided that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished service to the State, but met the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was wounded in the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the protection of the national defense and security, or the protection of the people’s lives and property.
The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above decision with this Court 2014Guhap5280, which is dissatisfied with the above decision of non-existence of the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State. This court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim and rendered a decision revoking the above decision. The Defendant’s appeal and appeal against the above decision were all dismissed, and the above
E. On September 21, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision that the injury was a public official in the line of duty. On December 29, 2016, the Defendant issued a new physical examination for the Plaintiff and the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement deliberated and decided the Plaintiff as a public official on official (Grade VII) on December 29, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The legality of the instant disposition
A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion of civilian military employees constituted soldiers and policemen on duty as prescribed by Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Act”), the Defendant issued the instant disposition on the premise that civilian employees were not soldiers and policemen on duty but public officials on duty as prescribed by Article 4(1)15 of the Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, so the instant disposition