logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.09.09 2015구단1707
고엽제후유증환자신체검사등급기준미달처분취소
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, a Vietnam War veteran, was recognized as actual aftereffects of defoliants of defoliants (hereinafter “instant wounds”).

B. On September 18, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for a physical examination for re-verification of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants. On November 17, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition on August 10, 2015 that the instant difference falls short of the grading criteria (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion has deteriorated due to the instant wounds, such as suffering from urineocology in the urology, and other symptoms despite continuous treatment. The instant disposition that rendered a judgment below the standards of rating on the ground of the results of the formal physical examination conducted at the central veterans hospital while driving away from time.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. The facts of recognition (1) was found to have been observed on September 16, 2013 at the first time after the diagnosis of the patient's non-duplicating urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine in the examination on March 17, 2014, and the examination on September 18, 2014 increased the number of urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine in the examination.

The observation will continue six months after the lapse of the six months.

(2) Mtild NPDR (the early non-duplicization urology certificate) of the Central Veterans Hospital; (3) whether this court conducted a certain inspection on the Plaintiff’s medical records as a result of the request for the examination of the medical records to the head of the KatoTol University; and (4) whether the examination was conducted.

arrow