추가상이처불인정처분취소 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On September 13, 2005, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and was discharged from military service on August 16, 2006. On August 18, 2006, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that “the Plaintiff was treated at a military hospital due to the aggravation of the brudity of the brudity due to the work performed by the sports center construction work,” and received treatment at the military hospital.
B. On December 12, 2006, the Defendant’s Veterans Examination Council passed a resolution that the Plaintiff’s “vertebrate L4-5 (Ex Postebrate)” falls under the requirements for soldier or policeman on duty, and registered as a soldier or policeman on duty under class 7 and class 802 of the disability rating on February 26, 2007. The Plaintiff was determined as a soldier or policeman on duty on July 6, 2017 through the physical examination conducted on July 6, 2017.
C. On October 21, 2016, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with L3-4 and L5-S1 vertebrate brate boom, and applied for the addition of major recognition on January 8, 2017 by applying for the following: L5-S1 left-hand boom booming on January 3, 2017; L3-4 on January 4, 2017; and L3-4 on January 6, 2017; and on December 8, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for the addition of major recognition.
On July 20, 2018, the defendant decided that the plaintiff does not constitute a soldier or policeman wounded on duty or a soldier or policeman on duty, or a soldier or policeman on duty, but does not constitute a requirement.
2) Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1, 2, 3-2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion was made in the same period as “vertebrate separation certificate L4-5, a wounded person recognized by the Defendant as a soldier or policeman wounded on duty,” the Plaintiff also constitutes a person of distinguished service to the State and a person eligible for veteran’s compensation.
Nevertheless, this case is based on different premise.