국가유공자요건비해당처분취소
1. The part of the claim for revocation of the disposition corresponding to the requirements for the Military Security in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's remainder.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On March 12, 2001, the Plaintiff entered the Air Force and was on duty as a military police guard of the B military police corps, and was on duty as a military dog manager of the military dog corps among the military police corps guards. On October 3, 2001, the Plaintiff sustained knee-knee-knee-knee-knee-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne
B. On October 19, 2001, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the first half of the first half of the first half of the year, the first half of the year, the first half of the year, the first half of the year, the second half of the year, the first half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half
C. On November 5, 2002, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that the Plaintiff was different from the Defendant, and was recognized as a person of distinguished service to the State on November 5, 2002, but was judged below the rating of injury as a result of the fourth physical examination.
On December 2, 2011, the Plaintiff applied for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State in the line of duty to the Plaintiff on March 15, 2013. E. On April 24, 2012, the Plaintiff was determined as having been subject to a physical examination for re-verification on June 29, 2012, and was determined as having failed to meet the criteria for disability rating under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State. Accordingly, on July 17, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition failing to meet the criteria for disability rating under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
(i) [In the absence of a dispute over the basis of recognition, entry in Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The defendant is residing in the plaintiff, which judged on this safety defense.