추가상이 불인정결정 처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The plaintiff entered the Army on September 1, 1995 and is serving military service.
November 30, 1996 discharged from military service.
B. On December 18, 200, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she had suffered the escape evidence of conical signboards No. 3-4 and No. 4-5 during military service, and filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State with the Defendant on December 18, 200, the Defendant decided on July 6, 2001 that the Plaintiff constitutes “the person of distinguished service to the State” under Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, and decided on December 7, 2006 that the Plaintiff’s disability rating related to the above recognition constitutes class 7.
C. On February 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional recognition with the Defendant on the ground that “I would have suffered from the post signboard escape certificate No. 3-4 during military service (hereinafter “the instant injury”). However, on August 10, 2016, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been suffering from the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the security of the State or the protection of the people’s life and property (hereinafter “state’s protection, etc.”), and on the ground that the Plaintiff’s application for recognition of the said additional exemption was not deemed to have deteriorated at a natural progress level or to have become worse due to performance of duties or education and training not directly related to the national defense, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”). In addition, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s application for recognition of the additional exemption was rejected (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1, 2, and Eul 1, 2, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The difference between the Plaintiff’s assertion and the instant assertion is that the Plaintiff caused unreasonable physical labor during military service or rapidly aggravated, and thus, there is a proximate causal relation between the occurrence of the instant difference and the duties performed by the Plaintiff during military service.