전공상부분인정처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff entered the Gun on March 4, 1999 and was discharged from military service on May 3, 2001. On August 25, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State with the Defendant on the ground that “On July 7, 1999, when he was in military service, he was faced with six parts of a compulsory soldier’s elbane during training on July 7, 199, and was suffering from the upper part ( KRW 13, Ma12, Ma11, Ma21, Ma22, Ma23), and requested a reexamination on the status of a person of distinguished service to the State at the April 46, 2012. The Defendant, after deliberation and resolution by the Merit Reward Judgment Committee on June 5, 2012, recognized that the records of treatment in each military service had not been verified during the course of performance of official duties, but did not have any difference in the status related to official duties.”
B. On June 15, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. The Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling on September 18, 2012 that “The Decision that, in consideration of the fact that the radiation exposure to the left-hand side (Y22), was partly observed by the radiation exposure disease, it is reasonable to determine the difference in official duties in relation to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, following the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement on November 14, 2012, following the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement to the Plaintiff on November 14, 2012, following the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement to the Plaintiff, “It is reasonable to determine the difference in official duties, but it is not recognized that the difference is not recognized as the difference in official duties.”
【Ground of recognition】 Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 3, Evidence No. 1-3, and evidence No. 3
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. On July 199, when the plaintiff alleged that he was in military service, he would be trained as a policeman on early July 1, 199.