국가유공자요건비해당결정취소
1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On September 29, 1992, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on February 11, 1993.
B. On October 31, 1992, while serving in the military, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by the Armed Forces Capital Hospital as “Matern Maternal Maternal Matern (hereinafter “instant wounds”) and applied for the registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the Defendant on the basis of the difference in the instant wounds.
C. On July 7, 2014, following the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered a decision on whether it constitutes a person of distinguished service to the State and a person eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that there was no objective medical data to recognize that the instant wounds occurred due to the performance of military duties
(hereinafter “each disposition of this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate
A. On 190, before the Plaintiff asserted that kidney was bad as a result of the urine test conducted at the Incheon Madem Busan Madem Hospital, which was before the Plaintiff entered the military, but there was no physical or symptoms, and the Plaintiff did not receive medical treatment at the hospital any longer, and was determined as class 1 in physical examination at the hospital.
After that, while entering the Gun, the Plaintiff continued to receive treatment in a medical room, while undergoing a new illness training at the training center for the three group training room, while receiving the treatment. If the Plaintiff was immediately transferred to the hospital at the time of the breath, the instant difference was not significantly worse.
As a result, the Plaintiff continued to undergo training without proper treatment during education and training, which led to aggravation of symptoms, and was diagnosed of the instant difference. Although there was a proximate causal relationship between the instant difference and the Plaintiff’s performance of official duties, the Defendant’s disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.
B. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff is suffering from the instant wounds and the progress of treatment.