국가유공자요건비해당결정취소
1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are dismissed, respectively.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On March 23, 1968, the Plaintiff was Vietnam Wared from June 8, 1968 to June 22, 1969, and was discharged from military service on February 28, 1971.
B. On April 3, 2013, on April 20, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of persons of distinguished services to the State and persons of distinguished services to the State for veteran’s compensation on the ground that the enemy’s shotia and the inner part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the left part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the body and the upper part of the body of the body of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the horse at night (hereinafter “the front part of the application”).
C. On November 7, 2013, the Defendant confirmed that the final diagnosis was made to the Plaintiff on both sides and with a diversity of the Non-Scule Madne Madne Madne Madne Madne Madne Madne, but the cause of the outbreak was recorded by nature. The objective supporting materials to acknowledge that the Plaintiff suffered from wounds in combat action or any other similar performance of duties, or caused military performance of official duties are not verified. In addition to the Plaintiff’s statement, there was no objective supporting materials to prove that the case was caused due to the direct cause of combat action, the performance of duties equivalent thereto, or the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the security, and there was no objective supporting materials to prove that the case was caused by the occurrence of duties or education and training, which were not directly related to the national protection and security, and that there was no objective supporting materials to prove that the case was significantly aggravated due to the occurrence of natural progress, and thus, relevant persons eligible for distinguished service to the State.
The Plaintiff filed an objection, but was dismissed on April 10, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap, 1.