국가유공자 및 보훈보상대상자요건 비해당결정 취소
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 September 11, 1976, the Plaintiff entered the 909 unit, which was a special unit for information companies, and was trained for the performance of special military duties, around June 1977, the Plaintiff was discharged from the military service on July 51, 1977, and was discharged from the military service on August 2, 197.
B. On August 16, 2010, 33 years after discharge from active service, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State, alleging that there was an injury or disease, such as the scopic disease, scopic disease, etc. in any disease classified on a monthly basis, including the scopic disease, scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic sp
C. On April 1, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation (hereinafter referred to as the “former litigation”) under the former 201-Gu 1812, the lower court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that there was no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff received treatment on the parts of the lower court and the lower court’s judgment on July 19, 2013, but the Plaintiff was found to have been injured on the parts of the lower court during his service, and the remainder of the Plaintiff 5-6, 6-7 trends and 5 trends - the Nonindicted 1,00-gu 1,000-gu 1,000-gu 1, but was not included in the name of diagnosis until the time of the disposition. The Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that there was no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff received treatment on the parts of the lower court and the lower court’s judgment for this reason, but the Plaintiff appealed from the appellate court on April 8, 2014.
However, the Plaintiff again filed an application for re-registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State by asserting that the Plaintiff suffered from “adravating pressure No. 1” (hereinafter the instant award due to the said crashed incident, and the Defendant on this date on January 2014.