Revocation

2. On January 23, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition against the Plaintiff as not constituting a person eligible for veteran’s compensation is revoked.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on January 23, 2015 is revoked.

A. On December 26, 201, the Plaintiff entered the Air Force, and was discharged from military service on December 25, 2013. B. On April 3, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that he/she caused a trajection infection due to military service (hereinafter “the instant wound”). On September 2, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition equivalent to the Plaintiff’s person of distinguished service to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that proximate causal relation between the instant wound and the military duty cannot be acknowledged (hereinafter “instant disposition” and “non-applicable disposition of distinguished service to the State,” and the “each of the instant dispositions”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on March 19, 2015, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the appeal on July 21, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 7, and 12 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff had no past history related to the instant difference, and performed the vehicle maintenance work upon being placed in the Air Force No. 518 Air Force, after having entered the support team to the degree of level 1 in a physical examination. The Plaintiff was unable to maintain the said unit, resulting in an increase in physical and mental stress while maintaining a mixed 20 vehicle due to the lack of maintenance of the said unit. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with the instant difference due to the outbreak of a brue brue in October 2013. Accordingly, even if there was a proximate causal link between the instant difference and the instant wound and the performance of duties, the Defendant’s dispositions based on the different premise are unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Details of the Plaintiff’s service

A) At the time of the Plaintiff’s transfer to the 518 Air Force, three military personnel were assigned to the 518 Air Force, but the Plaintiff’s leap among the maintenance and appointment of the Plaintiff was somewhat insufficient to maintain leap ○ among the maintenance and appointment of the Plaintiff, which was limited to the Plaintiff’s performance of his duties due to hurriosis. However, since January 2013 when the Plaintiff was discharged from military service, the Plaintiff was actually in charge of the maintenance and management of the Plaintiff, from January 2013, until October 2013, and two post-maintenance soldiers were transferred to the military hospital on November 2013, which was hospitalized by the Plaintiff.

B) On June 10, 2013, the official commendation award issued to the Plaintiff on June 10, 2013 by the Air Force Article 518, is that the Plaintiff faithfully performed his duties and contributed to the 5500th day of the accident without a vehicle by performing the duties faithfully.

2) The plaintiff's progress of treatment

A) Medical records at the Armed Forces Busan District Hospital on November 8, 2013

- State lakes and marshes: Bloods

- The current medical history: The above-mentioned medical personnel determined to entrust the medical treatment to a private hospital (high university hospital) after a telephone call on November 8, 2013 and after a telephone call on November 13:30, 201, as a result of suspicion of an in-depth and oral injury in the military, which had shown a little number of symptoms from around 10.23 to around 10.4.4.

B) Medical records at the Armed Forces Busan Hospital from November 8, 2013 to January 15, 2014

- The state diagnosis: The reasons for hospitalization of infection in the unexplosive track: In the case of a climatic change, the hospitalization shows the trajection in the internal and organizational examination conducted by a private hospital, as a result of the climatic change;

3) The relevant medical information base training unit salt is a chronic reproductive disease, which has not yet been found to have caused, and has not yet been revealed in the registry. Changes in the military register in the trapsy base began at work adjacent to the port, and gradually proceeds from the military register. There are features that the changes in the military register are not scattered in the military register. Although the cause of the trapsy base is not yet clearly known, the excessive immunity reaction of the body of the Republic of Korea to the germs ordinarily existing in the military, along with the environmental and genetic factors, are considered as important factors.

4) Although it is difficult to confirm the point of time of the accurate outbreak as a result of the physical examination commission to the Plaintiff, it can be seen that the cause of the blood side symptoms occurred from October 2013, and thus, the progress of illness has deteriorated from this point of time. There is a possibility that serious physical stress in the military service would have deteriorated the disease.

[Ground of recognition] A’s evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul’s evidence Nos. 5, 10, 12, and 13; witness B’s testimony; witness B’s testimony of this court’s Air Force Nos. 831 of the Air Force of this Court; and the head of Busan University Hospital’s reply to fact-finding; the purport of this court’s commission of physical examination to the Head

D. Determination

1) Whether a person constitutes a person of distinguished service

The Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State") and the Act on Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Persons, etc.") shall clearly distinguish the ‘accident or disaster that occurred directly due to school training,' from ‘accident or accident that occurred directly due to the performance of duties or education and training,' from ‘accident or accident that occurred in education and training,' and ‘the occurrence or aggravation of disease that is recognized as having considerable causal relationship with the performance of duties or education and training,' from the language and text of ‘the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State' (hereinafter referred to as the "former Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State") and the Act on Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State' from the perspective of ‘the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State Act 20.

However, the Plaintiff appears to have suffered from the instant wounds due to excessive duties, skins, etc. as a maintenance soldier. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that the instant wounds directly caused the performance of duties or education and training directly related to national defense and security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

2) Whether he/she constitutes a person eligible for veteran's compensation

In full view of the aforementioned facts, the aforementioned evidence, witness Eul's testimony, and the overall purport of oral argument, i.e., circumstances acknowledged as above, i.e., ① the Plaintiff did not receive medical treatment or treatment before entering the bar, and the Plaintiff was diagnosed as to the injury in the instant case after having been discovered after entering the bar. ② In particular, the Plaintiff performed the vehicle maintenance business with five persons from the 518 Air Force 518 Air Force. From January 2013 to October 2013, 200, the Plaintiff appears to have been actually in charge of the maintenance business. The Plaintiff's military motive, B, testimony to the purport that the Plaintiff was actually in charge of the vehicle maintenance business, and the Plaintiff's disposal of the Plaintiff's person eligible for veteran's compensation is expected to have been considerably with the mental and physical illness of the maintenance business performed by the Plaintiff, ③ the appraisal of the Plaintiff from around 10, 2013 to his/her physical stress, and thus, the Plaintiff's physical and mental stress of the Plaintiff's duty should be revoked.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the conjunctive claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jong-soo

Judges Park Jae-young