logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2017.05.25 2016누11368
국가유공자및보훈보상대상자 요건비해당결정취소
Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke below shall be revoked.

Defendant.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as stated in Paragraph (1) of the first instance court’s decision, in addition to the following: (a) the second instance court’s second instance judgment (“the instant disposition” (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) against the rejection of registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State “a non-competent disposition of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State”; and (b) the rejection disposition of registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State “a non-competent disposition of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State” (hereinafter referred to as “non-competent disposition of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State”; and (c) the two are the same as indicated in Article 8(2)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff did not receive treatment of the shoulder part before entering the army, that the shoulder part was broken out, and that the Plaintiff was under operation and treatment for both sides of the shoulder part by breaking the shoulder part in the course of the training after entering the military, which was turned out from the stairs during the course of the training course at around 17:00 on October 28, 201, to the head of the basic military training lecture (hereinafter “this case’s first accident”) and on April 13, 201, while undergoing the training for each dog on the right shoulder (hereinafter “the second accident”).

The Defendant’s disposition of this case, which was based on a different premise, was unlawful even though there was a proximate causal relation with the performance of the military duty that was caused by both sides of the Plaintiff.

B. It is as stated in the relevant laws and regulations attached thereto.

C. 1) The former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 13605, Dec. 22, 2015; hereinafter “former Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”).

) In order to be recognized as a person of distinguished service to the State (or a soldier on duty) provided for in Article 4(1)6 (including a disease) in the course of performance of duties or education and training directly related to national defense or security, or to the protection of people's lives and property (including a disease).

. have suffered loss.

arrow