국가유공자 및 보훈보상대상자 요건 비해당결정처분 취소청구의 소
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 22, 1992, the Plaintiff entered the Gun and was discharged from military service on August 14, 1993.
B. On March 13, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the basis of the injury to the State. However, on June 16, 2008, the Defendant rendered a decision on the non-conformity of the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State.
C. On June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for re-registration of the person who rendered distinguished services to the State on the grounds that the Plaintiff was different from the application for “defluence in the left portion” (hereinafter “instant wounds”).
After deliberation and resolution by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, on December 31, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision to the Plaintiff on the eligibility of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran's compensation (hereinafter referred to as "disposition in this case").
[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 3-1, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 1 and No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff asserted that he sustained injuries from the left eye while undergoing training around November 14, 192, which was after entering the military, and the defendant's disposition of this case made on a different premise is unlawful even though the plaintiff suffered injuries due to continued education and training or exposure to the outboard.
B. 1) There seems to be no problem in the process of diagnosing the instant wounds at the Armed Forces Hospital on the beds of beds (the result of the request for the examination of medical records for the head of the Silver University Scar Hospital). 2) The record that the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff was diagnosed of the crym infection and sulfur pansism before entering the hospital was confirmed, and there is insufficient grounds to view that the Plaintiff aggravated the brusity that was not completely cured after entering the hospital.
3) It seems that, during the process of the diagnosis and the training conducted before entering the hospital, the parts of the given team are not individually generated, but continuously identical during the path’s progress. 4) The Plaintiff’s past history is that he suffers from crymitis, and that he/she suffers from crymitis in the science of nursing records, and he/she is in the crymopsis, eyeconsis, and two parts