logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.04.27 2015구단55960
국가유공자 및 보훈보상대상자 비해당결정처분취소
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 August 1, 1992, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from the retirement age as an officer on May 31, 201, the Plaintiff sustained an injury to “Yekne, knenenene, Henene, and knenee (hereinafter “instant No. 1”)” while serving as an officer from November 1, 1996 to April 201, and applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant on July 14, 2014.

B. Accordingly, on March 30, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision that the instant wound does not constitute a person who rendered distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”), on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that the instant wound was caused by proximate causal link with military duties or education and training (hereinafter “the instant wound”).

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On December 2009, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion suffered from knee-free injuries while going beyond the ele-free training. On July 201, 201, the Plaintiff got additional injuries to kne-knee-fel-fele-fele-feling during the boundary facilities and fence patrols. On October 4, 201, the Plaintiff went beyond the patrol at the front of the fence, while entering the armed forces, such as kne-fe-fe-gel and gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-g

Despite the occurrence or aggravation of each of the instant injuries due to such educational training or performance of duties, the instant disposition issued on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Facts 1) Before the Plaintiff entering the Gun, the Plaintiff did not have to receive medical treatment with respect to knee, knee, hnee, and hume. 2) The Plaintiff complained of knee-knee-knee-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne

arrow