beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On September 6, 1990, the Plaintiff, who was on duty in the Army and was on duty in the Army on March 1992, 192, supported the camping Games during the sports activity hours, and was in an accident that meets the personality of the person and the person who was on duty, and was on duty at the YY-gu Party, and was discharged from the military on February 25, 1993.
B. On December 10, 2008, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished service to the Defendant on the basis of the application for a new physical examination results conducted on June 24, 2009, and received a decision from the Defendant that the Defendant “Saute (faute, faute, faute, faute, faute, faute, faute, faute, faute, faute (faute faute faute, faute faute faute)” constituted an official duty requirement (hereinafter “the instant difference”). However, on June 29, 2009, the Plaintiff was determined to fall short of the standard for rating of new physical examination results conducted on June 29, 209, and was not required to
C. On November 9, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition rejecting persons of distinguished service to the State as Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2009Gudan11426, and appealed by Seoul High Court 2010Nu42968. However, on April 6, 2012, the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on the ground that “The fact that the Plaintiff was found to have lost fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor, but was dismissed on August 17, 2012, although it appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2012Du10352.
On the other hand, on November 17, 2009, the Plaintiff added “the top 1.5 cm among chests” to the Defendant in addition to the instant wound, and applied for the re-registration of persons of distinguished service to the State again, and decided from the Defendant that the instant wound constituted the requirements for official duty, but was determined to fall short of the grading standard in the physical examination conducted on March 1, 2010.
(e).