국가유공자등록거부처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The plaintiff entered the Army on May 1, 1998 and was discharged from military service on December 8, 198.
B. On July 16, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation by alleging that “Around January 1, 1983, while serving in the military, the Plaintiff was suffering from an accident that had a completely armed rioted military and outdoor training for the mobilization training of the reserve force and returned to the military unit, has lost his own mind and has been faced with his face, and has been faced with his face in the bed (hereinafter “instant accident”), but there was a symptoms divided into the horses. On March 16, 2005 after discharge, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a liver, and was given medical treatment, but the state was not improved.”
C. On January 16, 2014, following a resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered a decision on the non-conformity of the requirements for a person eligible for veteran’s compensation under 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.”) and notified the Plaintiff of the decision on the non-conformity of the requirements for a person eligible for veteran’s compensation under the Act on the Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the Act”), on the ground that there is no specific objective evidence to verify the identity of the person eligible for veteran’s service in the instant case, and there is no proximate causal link between the instant wounds and the performance of official duties.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2, 10, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The difference between the Plaintiff’s assertion and the instant case occurred while serving in the military as above, and thus, there is a proximate causal relation between the instant difference and the performance of duties during the military service.