국가유공자요건비해당결정취소
All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The plaintiff entered the Army on December 21, 1995 and was discharged from military service on February 21, 1997.
B. On November 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration against the Defendant on the ground that he/she had received diagnosis and hospitalized treatment as a skin ship (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”), following the occurrence of an acute fluence and fluence in the performance of duties in a counter-espionage operation.
C. On April 21, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s above application for registration on the ground that the proximate causal relation cannot be acknowledged between the main branch of the instant case and the performance of military duties, and the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on October 13, 2015.
On May 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration with the Defendant on the ground that there is a proximate causal relation with the military duty. On September 21, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision that the instant injury and disease did not meet the requirements for “accident and injury of disaster” under Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc.”) or Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”) as it is difficult to recognize that the injury and disease of this case was caused by proximate causal relation with the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the national defense, security, etc., or
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was healthy at the time of entrance, but was put into a counter-espionage operation while in the military service, and lives in the field of mental stress and path, and the field.