보훈보상대상자비해당결정처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the instant case, is to dismiss “this court” as “court of the first instance,” which is to reduce the fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is to reduce the fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and to delete “the last part” of the last 10th part, and to eliminate “the last part,” and to reduce the following) clinical dogs such as definite or definite finite, and is clearly abnormal in the special auxiliary prosecutor, and is recognized as incomplete finite finite finite (6109).
Finally. In addition, except for the supplement of the following 2. Additional decision, the reasoning of the first instance judgment is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, thereby citing it as it is.
2. Additional determination
A. With respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion related to “any apparent recurrence”, “any apparent recurrence” of the disability rating requirements set forth in Article 8-3 [Attachment 4] 6-3(b)(a) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State should be interpreted not only to refer to the re-efluence of the existing side, but also to include the injury of illness or permanent military register, such as the relevant side, such as nephical disease. In such a case where such interpretation is not made, the provision does not meet the main requirements of Article 6-2(2) [Attachment 4] of the [Attachment 6-4] [Attachment 6-2] that “any treatment, including surgery, shall continue to be performed,” and on the other hand, there is no opinion that the above provision constitutes an unlawful provision that goes beyond the delegation scope of higher Acts and subordinate statutes or violates higher Acts and subordinate statutes.
2) The judgment [Attachment 4] No. 6-b. 2] of the [Attachment 6-A] requires that there exist “any apparent recurrence” under the special prosecutor’s opinion as a requirement for determining the degree of injury to the concealed escape certificate. Here, the “reexploitation” has occurred only once.