국가유공자 및 보훈보상대상자 등록거부처분 취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition that rendered against the Plaintiff on January 14, 2015 corresponds to the requirement of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State shall be revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On September 27, 2010, the Plaintiff entered the Air Force and discharged the Plaintiff from active service on the ground of his/her former or his/her duty on August 25, 2011.
B. On December 28, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State or persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that “Around October 2010, the Plaintiff was receiving training at the Military Service Education Team for the Air Force (hereinafter “instant training center”) located in Jinju-si, and was discharged from the military hospital after receiving examination at the National Armed Forces Hospital because the right arms are not projected, while on December 2010, while serving in the training room, the Plaintiff was discharged from the military hospital.”
On the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's wounds and the performance of official duties, the defendant issued a disposition that did not correspond to the requirements for persons of distinguished services.
C. On August 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation with a detailed statement on the grounds that “In the course of training in the instant training center where the Plaintiff was carrying 20 km or more of a ridge in the instant training center and carried out a scopic scopher of a mountain ridge, the instant difference was suffered by dividing the scopulation into the military funeral weight.
On January 14, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition that did not constitute the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the instant wounds and the performance of official duties
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff asserted that he had a 20 km or more in the instant training center, and had a shoulder divided into the military gun weight during the training center. The Plaintiff suffered the instant difference.
Therefore, the difference in this case is directly related to the national defense security or the protection of the people's life property.