logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.06.29 2016구단66332
보훈보상대상자비해당결정처분취소
Text

1. On October 13, 2016, the decision that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on October 13, 2016 was revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 28, 2004, the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) entered the Army, and on December 31, 2004, the 196th 2nd 1st son of the 1st Gun Support Headquarters C unit of the Army (hereinafter “C unit of the Army,” hereinafter “C unit”) was assigned to the D unit of the 1st Gun Support Headquarters of the Army (hereinafter “C unit of the Army,”) and was assigned as the E unit of coal reserve from March 16, 2005 to the E unit of sale, and was found to be dead on April 28, 2005.

B. On March 10, 2016, the Plaintiff, the mother of the deceased, filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the Defendant on the ground that “the deceased died in excess of duty due to a change of assignment,” but on October 13, 2016, the Plaintiff was determined by the Defendant on the ground of the deliberation and opinion of the Patriots and Veterans Affairs Board (“the instant disposition”) that it is difficult to recognize that “the deceased died due to the performance of duty or education and training directly related to the national defense, etc., or due to considerable causal relationship with the military duty or education and training, and thus does not meet all the requirements of Article 4(1)5 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”) and Article 2(1)1 (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”).

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was a unilateral and illegal change of assignment against the deceased’s will, after the change of assignment to E sales assistant, the status of the deceased’s work was not good, the deceased’s duties were excessive, and the deceased was difficult to adapt to his life due to a new injury.

arrow