beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2015.06.26 2014구합1398

국가유공자 및 보훈보상대상자 비해당자처분취소

Text

1. On October 13, 2014, the Defendant issued a notice of the determination that the Plaintiff was not eligible for veteran’s compensation.

Reasons

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff’s husband B (C students; hereinafter “the deceased”) returned to the D police station’s husband, who was on duty as the third team leader of the Life Safety of the Police Station and the Estation (hereinafter “the instant police box”), and died of a “certificate of pulmonary gift” on October 14, 201, after having returned to the hospital for twenty-four hours from October 11, 201 to 09:00 on October 12, 201, and after having returned to the hospital for twenty-four hours, the ship was under the Ap and pulmonary difficulty symptoms. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23284, Oct. 13, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 23265, Oct. 22, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 23250, Oct. 36, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 23200, Oct. 14, 2011>

On March 14, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and the Defendant on the ground that the Deceased died due to overwork and stress.

On October 13, 2014, following the deliberation of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-determination on the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State or persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is difficult to recognize proximate causal relation between the deceased’s death and police duty or education and training because it is difficult to recognize the deceased’s death and that it does not constitute a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation, on the ground that it is difficult to deem the deceased’s death was exposed to special stress or excessive compared to other police officers, and that “waste”, the cause of death of the deceased, is highly likely to occur due

[Based on recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1-4, and there is no dispute, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole oral argument is that the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the oral argument is about 27 years and 6 months among 33 years and 5 months in service as a police officer, and frequently worked at a district unit and a police box, which is the highest public security site, and the so-called "save and stress," which were received while performing the above police service, weakenings the deceased's immunity and stress, and accordingly, the deceased's pulmone is affected by the death.