재해부상군경등급기준미달처분취소
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 March 31, 1970, while entering the Army, the Plaintiff was diagnosed on August 19, 1970 by the Masan 26 Hospital, and was hospitalized on August 28, 1970 by the Masan 26 Hospital (hereinafter “the instant injury”). From August 28, 1970 to the 26 Army Military Hospital, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on December 31, 1970.
B. On February 14, 2013, the Plaintiff received an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the Defendant while serving in the military, and the Defendant did not constitute the requirements for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State”), but determined that the instant wounds constituted the requirements for registration of a person eligible for veteran’s compensation under Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Support for Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Act on Persons of Distinguished Service”), based on recognition of the wounds
C. After that, on March 19, 2013, the Plaintiff was determined below the classification standard as a result of the physical examination of the instant injury conducted by the Busan Veterans Hospital, and on April 9, 2013, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that the Plaintiff was determined as below the classification standard and was determined as non-competent to the application of the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act.
On May 2, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, on October 15, 2013, the said claim was dismissed.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff alleged that he was discharged from military service after being diagnosed as the wound of this case while serving in military, and thereafter, his health was recovered to a certain extent. However, the plaintiff suffered inconvenience due to the injury of this case.
Therefore, the defendant's objection against the difference of this case on the ground of falling short of the grade criteria.