1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 1, 1966, the Plaintiff entered the Army and served in the 75th rank of the 26th sergeant, and was discharged from military service on March 22, 1969.

B. On February 20, 1968, while serving in the military, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant for distinguished service to the State on July 11, 2013, on the ground that an armed espionage and a scare, scare, face scare, scare, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “instant wounds”) were over the past while serving in the counter-espionage operations.

C. On January 17, 2014, following the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered a decision-making disposition on the eligibility of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant wounds were not verified, on the ground that there was no objective data to prove that the instant wounds occurred due to a military performance, such as a counter-espionage operation.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 5, Eul Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he was injured by knenee, while transporting heavy equipment while serving in the military during the field of gambling training. The Plaintiff was wounded by an armed espionage during a counter-espionage operation on February 20, 1968, while going beyond the knee with an armed espionage during the counter-espionage operation. The Plaintiff was wounded in the instant case.

Therefore, the difference in this case occurred during combat action or during the performance of duties corresponding thereto, and thus, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not recognize it is unlawful.

B. “A proximate causal relationship between a soldier or policeman killed or wounded in action or in action equivalent thereto” under Article 4(1)4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, and “A proximate causal relationship between a soldier or policeman wounded in action or in action or in action, or between an injury and disease” under Article 4(1)6 of the same Act

Supreme Court Decision 2006Du14032 Decided December 7, 2006