보훈보상대상자(재해부상군경)비해당결정처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 11, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the Army and served at the Second War Forces on the part of the Plaintiff.
On October 29, 2014, medical personnel was discharged from military service.
B. On May 21, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she was injured on kneekne in put put-in games in the Gun. On May 8, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant for registration of persons of distinguished service to the State on the basis of the difference between the Defendant and the Defendant, “Sekne No. Madle No. 1353, May 8, 2015.”
C. On January 7, 2016, after deliberation by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered a decision regarding the instant wounds to the Plaintiff as a soldier, police officer, and police officer.
On March 29, 2016, the Plaintiff received a new physical examination for disability ratings from the Central Veterans Hospital, and received a disposition from the Defendant falling short of the disability rating standard on May 18, 2016.
E. On December 6, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for a physical examination for re-verification on the ground of aggravation of the instant wounds.
On March 5, 2018, the Defendant rendered a “decision pertaining to non-applicable amount of persons eligible for veteran’s compensation” (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the degree of physical disability resulting from the instant wounds falls short of the disability rating standards prescribed by the statutes, following a re-verification physical examination (as of January 3, 2018) and the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 7, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a person with serious disability, such as knee not being properly bended due to the instant difference, and considering the appraisal opinion, etc. of physical appraisal that falls under class 7 8122 by comprehensively taking into account the condition of slots, the Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes “a person with serious functional disorder in light of one of class 7 8122 of the three major sections of one bridge” under class 7 8122.
Nevertheless, the instant disposition that was otherwise determined is unlawful.
(b) Appendix attached to the relevant legislation;