logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.06.10 2015구단1859
국가유공자요건비해당결정취소
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. On March 14, 1975, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on June 30, 1976, when serving in the Army, due to the occurrence of “the cage of tuberculosis” (hereinafter “the instant wounds”).

B. On May 9, 2014, the Plaintiff’s defect in filing an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished service to the State, and the Defendant decided on September 11, 2014 as a person eligible for veteran’s compensation.

C. The Plaintiff applied for the registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on January 21, 2015, while the instant wounds meet the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State. However, on July 31, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision that did not constitute the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State pursuant to the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “There is no objective evidence that the instant wounds occurred due to military performance or education and training directly related to the protection of the State.”

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the said claim on November 3, 2015.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence No. 1, and the ground for appeal

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Since the instant wounds occurred due to continuous military training by entering the armed forces without the Plaintiff’s assertion, there is a proximate causal relation between the national security or the performance of duties directly related to the protection of the people’s life and property and the instant difference.

B. (1) The Plaintiff did not have any record that there was a disease or treatment related to the instant wound in addition to the Plaintiff, with the right scarcity prior to entering the bar, in addition to the Plaintiff who scarfed herb drugs.

(2) The Plaintiff was diagnosed as the instant wound while serving in the military and received medical treatment.

(3) Medical opinions of the appraisal of medical records (1) The intake of non-sanitary water is irrelevant to the Tuberculosis branch and due to the division.

arrow