1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On July 1, 2002, while serving in the military as Second Lieutenant, the Plaintiff was diagnosed on June 27, 2009 with the right-hand basin cancer (hereinafter “instant disease”), and the same year.

7. 8. On February 28, 2013, a person was discharged from active service due to a mental or physical disorder on the part of the right bank after receiving aviation cancer treatment, radiation treatment, etc. from the hospital for the State of the State of the State of the State of the State.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a pension for wounds with the Defendant claiming that the instant disease constituted an occupational disease. However, on July 12, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision non-existence of a person entitled to a pension for wounds pursuant to Article 10 of the Military Pension Act and Article 22 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Military Pension Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25863, Dec. 22, 2014; hereinafter the same) on the ground that “The determination of the outbreak due to an occupational negligence in the outbreak of a disease is recognized by the Plaintiff,” on the ground that “the determination of the outbreak due to an occupational negligence in the outbreak of a disease is recognized as a classical work, night work, and it cannot be deemed that there is any over

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). [Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons. The plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case is unlawful.

The defendant presented only abstract reasons, without omitting specific applicable Acts and subordinate statutes, as to which standard is applied in determining whether the instant disease was a disease due to official duties at the time of the instant disposition. It is difficult for the plaintiff as the plaintiff to understand what ground and reason the defendant made the instant disposition.

Therefore, the instant disposition was made in violation of the basis of the disposition of the administrative agency and the duty of presentation of reasons under Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act, and is unlawful.

. substantive defect.