국가유공자 요건 비해당처분 등 취소청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff entered the Army on December 21, 1979 and was discharged from military service on August 31, 1982.
B. On February 15, 2017, when the Plaintiff was serving in the military, from a large number of senior soldiers in 1981 who were suffering from brain damage, the Plaintiff was provided with medical treatment for brain damage. Aftermath, the Plaintiff was in a state of difficulty in normal life due to verbal disorder and walking disorder until now, and applied for registration of persons of distinguished services to the State on the basis of “the head” as the applicant for registration.
C. On November 30, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition against the Plaintiff that did not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State or persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) on the ground that: (a) the time of the occurrence of the instant accident was 23:50 on June 5, 1981, and that the time of occurrence was 23:50 on a day-to-day beds; and (b) considering that the state of drinking was a private act unrelated to the performance of military duties; and (c) the filing of the application is deemed to have caused the occurrence or aggravation of the occurrence due to the occurrence of military duties or education and training (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate
A. According to the records, such as the beds of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the fact that a unilateral assault was committed by B that was appointed by the Plaintiff is apparent, and such assault cannot be deemed as caused by the Plaintiff’s intentional act or gross negligence.
The difference between the plaintiff and the plaintiff was caused by the mistake in the performance of the duty of the appointed party B, who performs internal duty together with the plaintiff, and this was caused by the act within the ordinary scope of the military duty. Thus, each of the dispositions of this case conducted on the premise that the proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's wound and the military duty
B. Determination Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 2 and witness B