국가유공자등록거부처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of recognition and disposition;
A. On April 5, 2010, the Plaintiff was appointed as a noncommissioned Officer on August 1, 201 after entering the Army, and was discharged from military service on August 31, 2012.
B. From around December 2010, the Plaintiff had been serving in the military and was diagnosed by the Armed Forces Yangyang-si Hospital as a non-specific mental disorder (hereinafter “instant disability”) and received continuous medical treatment from the Armed Forces Yangyang-si Hospital and the Armed Forces Waterworks Hospital on August 31, 2012.
C. On September 6, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant injury was caused due to the harassment and abuse of senior staff members during military service, and filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State with the Defendant on September 6, 2012. On February 19, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the instant injury did not have proximate causal relation with the military performance of official duties (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
On the other hand, on August 5, 2014, the Plaintiff is receiving a diagnosis of the problem of fissionability in detail in Seoul Asan Hospital and treating the same.
E. The instant injury and the process of division disorder whose details are unknown are diagnosed in a case where the form differs from the typical symptoms of a general mental fission so that it is not possible to classify the two into a particular ad hoc form.
F. There is no objective basis established medically as to the relation or contribution to the instant injury and disease.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, and Eul evidence 1, and the result of entrustment of medical record appraisal to the head of Seoul Medical Center of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff alleged that he/she was in charge of vehicle transportation while serving in the military. The Plaintiff forced the Plaintiff’s senior officer to serve in place of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff refused to serve in place of his/her duty, which led the Plaintiff to abusive and assault, and that the Plaintiff’s credit card would be settled.