공상군경등급기준미달결정취소
1. The change of the applicable classification that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on March 14, 2017 is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 15, 1972, the Plaintiff was appointed as a police official and was retired from office on May 31, 1999. On June 20, 2005, the Plaintiff was registered as a soldier or policeman on duty upon recognition of the eligibility of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on the “insular secte” as a soldier or policeman on duty.
B. After that, on February 3, 2015, the Plaintiff received a comprehensive judgment of Grade VII soldier or policeman wounded on the ground that the Plaintiff’s “sloaking sloaking sloaking sloaking sloaking sloaking sloaking sloaking sloaking sloaking” and “sloaking sloaking sloaking sloaking sloaking sloaking sloaking sloaking sloak
C. On May 25, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for a re-examination for a trial on the ground that the Plaintiff’s “slicking soft salt” was carried out “slicking to a diplomatic mission, which is a sleep,” and that it aggravated the wounds on July 13, 2016.
Accordingly, on March 14, 2017 following the physical examination, the Defendant issued a disposition to change the classification of soldiers and police officers into Class 7 of the soldiers and police officers, from Class 6 to Class 6 2 of the Military Service, on the ground that the “slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick
E. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition, dissatisfied with the disability rating of “influences inside the coordinates” (hereinafter “influences”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Defendant, in violation of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 procedure, took the instant disposition by a person who rendered distinguished services to the State to change his/her status as a person eligible for veteran’s compensation, which restricts