재판정신체검사등급판정처분 취소
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
1. The court's explanation concerning this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment by this court under paragraph (2) of this Article, and therefore, this is also accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The abbreviation of the law to determine the addition by this court is governed by the judgment of the court of first instance.
A. As to the assertion regarding the entry in the medical records around May 7, 1972, the Plaintiff asserted that the attacked by the enemy forces in battleed on May 7, 1972, and the explosion caused both ear to their explosions, including the left-hand return after treatment, and that both ears have a serious trouble to both ear, and that the fact that the fact of having a defect in the hearing power due to the malfunction of the left-hand ear can be confirmed by the medical records (A7-1-4) at the time.
In light of the medical records containing the contents of treatment around 1972 and 1973, the part of the medical records is as follows: (a) there is a part stating that there has been a tent in the “contestation of ear on the left side” (A7-3 “the first diagnosis volume”, and 4). However, there are conflicting parts (A7-2 and 3 “the last diagnosis name” only stating that there has been a diaperous disorder in the “ear on the left side” (the first diagnosis name: hereinafter “the first diagnosis name”) and the above medical records alone cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff suffered an diaperous wound even on the left side. Meanwhile, even if the Plaintiff’s diagnosis was conducted on the left side of ear in detail, it cannot be granted a disability rating including the Plaintiff’s disability rating as long as the Plaintiff did not have been recognized as a disability related to the left side of ear on the left side.
The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.
B. As to the assertion that the Plaintiff was recognized on the left-hand disability as a wound in 1992, the Plaintiff’s physical examination table from 1992 to 2004 shall be 1-4 to 5, 2, 2.