추가상이처 인정거부처분 취소 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 April 15, 1947, the Plaintiff entered the Army and participated in the Korean War 6.25, and was discharged from military service on May 15, 1954.
B. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was forced to cut down on both sides due to the explosion during the Korean War of June 25, 2010 and suffered from scarcitys, and applied for registration under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State for each of the above wounds. On July 13, 2010, the Defendant was recognized as a different body from the Defendant.
C. After that, on July 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for further recognition of “inception, hair, and neconsivity due to chronological disorder” (hereinafter “instant wounds”) as a major wound, in addition to the wounds recognized as a wound.
On December 22, 2014, following the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered a decision non-conformity with the requirements for additional coverage on the ground that “the content of the medical certificate and letter of guarantee submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be recognized as having caused the instant wound in combat action or during the performance of duties corresponding thereto” to the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 7, and 16, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion suffered from this case’s injury due to the explosion during the Korean War of June 25, 200, and currently suffering from dynassis, etc.
The injury of this case was caused by the shot explosion that occurred during the military service, and thus an additional injury should be recognized. The defendant's disposition of this case based on the premise that the injury of this case was not caused during battle was unlawful.
(b) Determination 1) Article 4(1)4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No. 200