logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.04.26 2016구단8399
국가유공자 및 보훈보상대상자 요건 일부해당결정처분취소
Text

1. Of the instant lawsuits, it is located in the outer side of the right slot, the upper half of the year, the upper half of the year, and the outer side of the right slot.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 1, 2007, the Plaintiff was discharged from active service on December 31, 2014 by subrogation, who was so-called the Army.

B. On June 17, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that “I, during the military service, kne kne kne se kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne in the process of performing the duties of the pertinent association’s performance of the duties of the GOP kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne in the process of performing the duties of the relevant association, exceeded 50 times from stairs and got worse from the stairs, and had performed the operation twice twice more than twice due to the aggravation’s aggravation.” The Plaintiff claimed that I applied for registration to the Defendant for the name of distinguished service to the Defendant.

C. On January 14, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision to the Plaintiff that only the Plaintiff’s injury “satisfying satfys from the outer side of the satfy and the outer side of the satfy and the outer side of the right satfy and the outer side of the right satfy” constituted a person eligible for veteran’s compensation. D.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that it is unreasonable that the Defendant’s decision that “the person who rendered distinguished services to the State and was not eligible for veteran’s compensation” did not meet the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation, and filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of such decision, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s administrative appeal on May 27

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

A. Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant added the Plaintiff’s statement of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of March 12, 2019 to the statement of the application for the modification thereof, which is the first half of the right slot.

arrow