국가유공자요건비해당결정취소
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders revocation below, shall be revoked.
Defendant.
1. On June 23, 2014, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on April 20, 2015.
On April 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that the Plaintiff’s application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant wounds”) was based on the following grounds: (a) since the Plaintiff was shot on the shoulder while entering the land training center around July 2014, he/she was released from military service, due to an operation with a severe pain of the left-hand shoulder during the transport of ammunition around September 2014; and (b) around September 2014, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service.
On December 2, 2015, the Defendant issued a notice of non-competent decision (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff does not meet the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State (or persons injured on duty) and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “persons injured on disaster”).
On December 24, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant, but was dismissed on March 4, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-2, 3, Eul evidence 2, 13-16, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff suffered losses in this case by repeating action that imposes a burden on the shoulder, such as transporting heavy bombs that go against 4 to 50 kmg without being properly treated under the complete control after being trained under the complete control after entering the school. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion constitutes requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State (a person rendering distinguished services to the State).
However, even if it is not so, the difference in the case occurred due to repeated training of physical burden and the transport of heavy coal, etc., which led to aggravation of natural progress or more. Therefore, the plaintiff satisfies the requirements for persons eligible for veteran's compensation.
(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;
C. In fact, the Plaintiff, while leading a high school student to cut off, did not undergo a diagnosis on the Plaintiff, although he was at a suspicion of sacrificing, and on October 28, 2009, he was at the National Assembly members of the Presidential Decree.