국가유공자등록거부처분취소
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 reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the part concerning modification or addition as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The amendment and addition of the part in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified to “Evidence 11 to 18 of the A” in Category 19 of the part in the judgment of the court of first instance by “Evidence 8, 11 to 18, 27 and 29 of the A.”
On the 3rd page of the first instance judgment, “Plaintiff” was added in front of “Plaintiff” in the 1995 G Hospital located in Busan Dong-gu L, Busan in 1995.
In the first instance court's text No. 4, No. 11, 12, and 16, each "this court" shall be changed to "the first instance court", "the witness" of the first instance court shall be changed to "the witness of the first instance court", and "the evidence No. 27 of the same kind" shall be added to "the evidence No. 30-1" of the same kind.
The 5th to 20th of the 5th of the first instance judgment shall be amended as follows.
“On the other hand, when the Plaintiff applied for the fact-finding to the first instance court on the medical school Syna Hospital Head of the medical college Synas Hospital, the Plaintiff stated “Rt-Sar, on January 17, 2008,” stating “Rt-H 20yargogo.” Based on this, the Plaintiff asked whether the Plaintiff first began at the time, around May 2006, about seven years before 2008, as it was about 198 years, and thus, it does not appear that the Plaintiff mentioned the instant accident. Moreover, it is inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion and the first instance court’s assertion that “The Plaintiff had been able to prove that the Plaintiff had been able to cause the Plaintiff’s right shock in the medical records of the medical branch of the Dr. D. on December 31, 2007,” and it is inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion and the first instance court’s assertion.
"...."