logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.08.27 2015구단52497
국가유공자비해당결정 취소
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 February 3, 1955, the Plaintiff, while serving in the Army, was killed in the left arms and legs due to mine explosion on January 1, 1956, and was injured by the earth. The Plaintiff discharged from active service on March 20, 1956.

B. On June 14, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State by asserting that the applicant had a disability to fully use the left part of the arms and legs due to neal damage caused by the said injury by using the difference in the application for registration to the Defendant, but on December 6, 2010, the Defendant rendered a disposition not corresponding to the requirements for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that there was no objective data, such as the belick site, etc. to find a proximate causal relation between the above injury and military service, on the ground that there

C. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the above disposition, filed an administrative litigation with the Seoul Administrative Court 201-Gu 4995. On December 14, 2012, the above court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant’s disposition was revoked on December 6, 2010” (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 13, 2013.

On August 21, 2013, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement decided that the Plaintiff’s application for the registration of a person of distinguished service to the State was different from the Plaintiff’s “multi-scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopics” (hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State”). On September 4, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of a non-specific decision on the criteria for the registration of a person of distinguished service to the State (the “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State”).

(e).

arrow