logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.08.21 2013구단51285
상이등급결정취소
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. The Plaintiff participated in the Korean War, and was judged to have suffered from the wounds, such as “Exemplary support cutting, recognition suspension cutting, mid-to-face cutting, support cutting, right-hand booming, information-to-hand burgical burgical burgical burgical burging, the left-hand burgical burging, and so on, as a result of the reclassification physical examination for the classification of disability ratings, that the said wounds meet the requirements of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State, and that they fall under class 5 of the disability ratings

B. On November 8, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for a re-examination of the above wounds with the Defendant on December 27, 2012, and received a physical examination for the classification of disability ratings at the Central Veterans Hospital (hereinafter “instant physical examination”). On January 9, 2013, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement examined the results of the instant physical examination conducted by medical specialists and related data, and then determined excellent support cutting, recognition suspension cutting, mid-to-mid support cutting, 6-2 and 7308 of the disability rating (one finger and two fingers) (one fingers and two fingers were lost), the upper right-hand part of the disability rating of the Plaintiff falls under Grade 7 and 4115 of the disability rating (one person whose disability rating was restricted in light of employment due to a chronic disorder), and the Defendant’s comprehensive physical examination of Grade 6 and Grade 111 of the 6-11 of the 6-11 of the 6-10 0 0 0 10 10 1 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 .

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s argument that he was in charge at the time of undergoing the physical examination of the instant case.

arrow