공상군경 비대상 결정처분 취소청구의 소
1. The decision that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on June 22, 2018 was revoked as a soldier or policeman wounded on duty.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On September 3, 1984, while entering the Army and receiving education for a new illness, the Plaintiff sustained injury of the “sacrife sacrife-gu” (hereinafter “instant injury”) due to an accident, and thereafter discharged from military service on May 6, 1985.
B. On February 22, 2000, the Plaintiff applied for registration of the merit of the instant case, and was registered as a soldier or policeman wounded on duty in Grade VII on the result of the physical examination of the instant wound as a soldier or policeman wounded on duty in Grade VII.
C. On January 5, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for a re-examination with the Defendant on the ground that the state of the instant wounds has deteriorated, and on February 23, 2018, the Daejeon Veterans Hospital received a physical examination but was determined to fall short of the grading standards.
On June 22, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition on the Plaintiff on the ground that “the degree of physical disability falls short of the grading criteria as a result of the physical examination, the Veterans Examination Committee’s review results show that the instant disability did not affect the restriction on the scope of the movement in the field, and there is no opinion to restrict the scope of the movement in the field, such as salt, etc., and thus, the instant disability does not fall under the disability rating criteria for soldiers and policemen on duty.”
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute, Gap’s 1 to 4, Eul’s 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff had symptoms of the wound of this case and was limited to not less than 1/4 of the physical area of tolerance, and thus, grade 7 of disability rating 7 and class 7124 of disability rating are recognized. However, the defendant's disposition of this case judged otherwise below the disability rating is unlawful.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
C. Article 6-4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, Article 14(3) [Attached Table 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and attached Table 8-3 of the Enforcement Rule of