2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on February 26, 2009 as non-conforming to the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State shall be revoked.

Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

A. On September 8, 1988, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and was discharged from military service on February 28, 1993 at the 35th unit of the 7th unit of the 7th unit of the 7th unit of the 7th unit of the Special Military Technology.

B. On September 22, 2008, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that he lost the hearing ability of the left-hand-hand side after having been subject to the appointment and discharge from the military service, and that there was a serious difficult symptoms to the right-hand side. The Defendant could not verify the existence of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and that the Plaintiff received hospitalized treatment due to chronic dysule, etc. after the lapse of two years from the time of the assertion, on the ground that it cannot be recognized that the pertinent symptoms cannot be recognized as having relation to official duties of the person who has rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-23, Eul evidence 1;

The purport of all pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff suffered from the injury caused by the left-hand side due to his failure to conduct education and training on his successor by the non-party 1, who was on February 199, during military service (hereinafter referred to as the "first accident"), and on April 190, the plaintiff was forced to the left-hand side due to his son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son.

B. Accepted Facts and Determination

(1) recognised facts

(A) On September 8, 1988, the Plaintiff entered a company with special rank as a first class active duty soldier.

(B) On April 190, the Plaintiff, as part of the gathering of a unit (special military demonstration) around April 1990, was able to see Nonparty 2’s left side of the Plaintiff’s left side and used it on the sloping of Nonparty 2, the motive for entering the unit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was suffering from a defect in the left side of the unit, resulting in the Plaintiff’s medical treatment at a stage in the military unit.

(C) On July 7, 1992, the Plaintiff was diagnosed on the left-hand side as having undergone the first diagnosis by the National Armed Forces Hospital, and the Plaintiff was diagnosed as having chronic infections. The written diagnosis states that “the Plaintiff had continued to have been achieved more than two years, and it seems that the operational treatment would be necessary.”

(D) Around July 192, 192, the 35th presidential leader of the 7th presidential superior to the 7th presidential superior to the 7th presidential superior to the 35th presidential superior to the 7th presidential superior to the 1992 Plaintiff prepared a certificate of injury and disease in the line of duty, wherein the Plaintiff had been under continuous medical treatment due to the shock of the left-hand side of the 190th presidential superior to the 35th presidential superior to the 1992 presidential superior to the 196th presidential superior to the 196th presidential superior to the 199.

(E) On July 21, 1992, the Plaintiff was hospitalized into the Armed Forces Confection Hospital under the name of sick person, such as chronic chronitis and highly saves, etc. on the left-hand left-hand side. At the time of hospitalization, the medical records prepared by the Plaintiff indicate the purport that the Plaintiff was faced with the left-hand side during the two-year sports competition, and the nursing records also indicate the same purport.

(F) On July 30, 1992, the Plaintiff received an operation at the Armed Forces Armed Forces Hospital to treat the above injury and disease.

(G) On March 8, 200, the Plaintiff received medical treatment with an unidentified in detail. On April 15, 2009, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as follows: “As a result of the Plaintiff’s examination of honest force reduction and the left-hand ear from each side of about 10 years ago, the Plaintiff was in a situation where it is possible to see or communicate the right-hand ice with the degree of 80 to 90 anti-party ray, and even if it was given treatment with a sound of 50 anti-party ear to the right-hand ear and the degree of 60 anti-party ear to the left-hand ray, it is difficult to recover the honest force easily even if it was given treatment.”

(h) chronic diversity is highly likely to re-reinte, unless it is properly managed after the operation, even if there is a medical characteristic that repeats the recurrence and petition for a long period of time. In addition, if the hiversity is aggravated, the hiversity may be gradually lowered as a merger certificate, and the hiversity may occur.

(i) A medical specialist of the Jeonnam University transferred to another university who conducted the physical appraisal of the Plaintiff is difficult to clearly conclude the cause of the Plaintiff’s accident attributable to the left-hand left-hand side, but the Gun has caused a high level of injury due to crypt, etc., and thereafter, there is a possibility that the cause of the accident occurred in the Gun, which led to the occurrence of chronic dysty, or that the cause of the accident was accelerated.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 through 5, 7-2, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6, and the result of the commission of physical examination to the chief of the hospital at the court of the first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

(2) Determination

(A) “A soldier or police officer wounded during education and training or on duty (including illness in the line of duty)” referred to in Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State refers to the injury or disease of a soldier or police officer during education and training or in the line of duty. Therefore, in order to be different from the above provision, there is a proximate causal relation between education and training or in the performance of duty and the injury or disease, and the causal relation between the injury and the injury should be proved by the party asserting it (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du5617, Sept. 23, 2003, etc.). However, the causal relation does not necessarily have to be proved clearly by medical and natural science, and considering all the circumstances, it should be judged that there is a proximate causal relation between education and training or in the performance of duty and the injury or disease, and it should be determined based on the average injury or disease of a soldier or in the performance of duty (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du9090, etc.).

(B) In the instant case, the Plaintiff appears to have no particular error on the left-hand side before entering the military, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the first accident alleged by the Plaintiff, as seen earlier, the existence of the second accident alleged by the Plaintiff was acknowledged, and the Plaintiff got an operation at a military hospital with respect to the high-end saves caused by the second accident, the Plaintiff confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff was treated as a severe infection after he was discharged from the military, and the medical opinion that the symptoms of the Plaintiff’s saves caused or might have been aggravated due to chronic saves caused by the previous saves and the chronic saves that occurred after saves, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s saves symptoms on the left-hand left-hand side caused by the second accident caused by the Plaintiff’s saves that the Plaintiff suffered during his military service (the Plaintiff alleged that the saves saves save was caused by an education, training, or performance of duty).

Therefore, there is a proximate causal relationship between the symptoms of the plaintiff's left-hand office and the plaintiff's during military service, and the disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted as it is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judgment on the severity of the judge's rank (Presiding Judge)