상이등급구분 신체검사등급기준 미달처분취소 청구의 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 August 13, 2002, while serving in the Army, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on September 15, 2003 on the following occasions: (a) the Plaintiff: (b) was discharged from military service on April 26, 2003, under the diagnosis of “the total amount of burging kne, a total amount of burg, accompanied by a burgical burgs, and a large amount of curging curging with a burgical burgs, accompanied by a burgical burgs,” with the injury.
B. On November 9, 2006, the Plaintiff decided that the Defendant constituted the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State (military persons) under the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the Act”) on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, on the basis that the Defendant’s “Stong-man (Stong-man (Stong-man)” (hereinafter “instant wounds”), but was judged to have failed to meet the grading standards in a new physical examination on December 8, 20
C. On December 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration, and the Defendant rendered a decision that the instant wound does not meet the requirements for persons eligible for distinguished service to the State but meets the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation. On April 27, 2016, the Plaintiff undergo a physical examination conducted on April 27, 2016, and on June 8, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he/she was determined as below the criteria for disability rating as a result of the physical examination on the classification of disability ratings for the instant wound and was ineligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff’s appearance near the 2000000000s in water is serious, and this constitutes a person who has a function disorder in Gyeongdo in one of three sections among the three sections of the bridge “Class 7 of the disability rating set out in Table 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State.”
Therefore, unlike this, the defendant's assertion that the degree of the plaintiff's physical disability falls short of the disability rating.