beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.04.11 2017구단11193

국가유공자요건비해당결정취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 15, 2008, the Plaintiff entered the Army as a private soldier and discharged from active service on March 5, 2010.

B. After the early shooting training on August 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) caused the occurrence of this name and ties to the left and right ear; (b) failed to undergo timely treatment; (c) was diagnosed in detail by B Hospital on September 2, 2016; and (d) filed an application for registration of persons of distinguished services to the State with the Defendant on October 18, 2016.

C. On January 2, 2017, the Defendant: (a) deemed that “the name of the two sides” among the injuries applied to the Plaintiff falls under the requirements of Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”); (b) however, among the injuries applied for, the “Inception” did not fall under each of the requirements of Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State and Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment

On August 31, 2017, the Plaintiff received a physical examination pursuant to the provisions of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State. On August 31, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of a disposition of non-registration decision (hereinafter “disposition of this case”) to the effect that “nick name” falls short of the standard classification prescribed by the Acts and subordinate statutes.

(Evidence A) / [Grounds for Recognition] Gap 1, 2, 4, Eul 2, and 3, each entry, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff asserted that this case's disability rating for this case's person who suffered during military service and the person who suffered a serious disorder in his own ability under the classification table of disability ratings in attached Table 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State (related to Article 14 (3)) and the determination of disability ratings in attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State (related to Article 8 (3)), or a person who has a high level of defect in his own ability.