국가유공자비해당결정처분취소
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 was appointed as a police officer on April 3, 1974, and was retired ipso facto on April 4, 1979.
B. On June 25, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) filed an application with the Defendant for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State for “An accident involving a police truck that was on board while having completed the Presidential Security Guard on October 26, 1975,” on the ground that the Plaintiff was “An accident involving a police truck that was on board during the course of returning to the security guard.”
C. On December 26, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-specific determination on the requirements of a person of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “A reasonable causal link with the performance of official duties with the applicant branch is difficult to be recognized” (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition, and on March 19, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the determination on the non-conformity of the requirements for a person who rendered distinguished services to the State.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3, 25 evidence, Gap 26-1, Eul 1-3, Eul 3-1, Eul 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff had been injured on the part of the police station who had been performing the duties related to the security of the President on October 26, 1975, due to the previous reproduction that occurred while carrying out the duties related to the security of the President, and that the plaintiff suffered from the injury caused by oral injury and the loss of hearing, and that the police station in the police hospital did not receive medical treatment at the time could have been reprimanded.
Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful on a different premise.
B. (1) Determination is that “A soldier or police officer was wounded in the course of education and training or in the course of performing his/her duty (including illness in the line of duty)” under Article 4(1)6 of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 11041, Sep. 15, 201).