beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the following 2. Paragraph 2 is as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
On March 16, 2008, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 2008, 2, 2, 25, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2008, 2, 2, 2, 2, 21, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 8, 8, 2, 3, 3, 200, 2,2
2. Details of the judgment added;
A. The instant difference claimed by the Plaintiff, which was emphasized in the trial, constitutes a wound caused by military performance as it occurred in the course of shooting, shooting, shooting, and shooting training of 106 U.S. M. M. M. M.M., which was conducted by the Plaintiff during the military service, and thus, the instant measure should be revoked on a different premise.
B. “A soldier’s injury during education and training or in the performance of duty (including illness in the line of duty)” referred to in the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State refers to the soldier’s injury or disease during education and training or in the performance of duty. Therefore, in order to become different as prescribed in the above provision, there should be a proximate causal relationship between the education and training or in the performance of duty and the injury or disease
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du5617, Sept. 23, 2003). In light of the circumstances involving the first instance court and the first instance court, the fact inquiry results by December 15, 2014 regarding the fact-finding of the first instance court and the Gate Book by this court, the witness H of this court and I’s testimony are revealed as follows.