logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.11.20 2015구단1090
보훈보상대상자등록거부처분 취소청구의 소
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. Around 00:40 on September 13, 1998, the Plaintiff’s spouse net B (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was driven by the Nonparty C, who was driven under the influence of alcohol in front of the stadium located in the ice stadium located in the front city, in the front city, during the operation of the two-wheeled vehicle owned by the deceased. The deceased was killed in the first room of the front city hospital by suffering from low oxygen cerebral brain damage and lupture lups, etc. due to the accident.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). (b)

On December 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with a person of distinguished service to the State, etc. on the ground that “On September 12, 1998, while the deceased was working for the Kim Jong-gu Police Station Diplomatic Police Station, the deceased after starting a police box on September 12, 1998 and taking the place on September 13, 1997 at his/her remaining home, died of his/her non-insurance vehicle drinking, driving by overwork, and driving by speed.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant application”). (c)

On May 29, 2014, in the deliberation of the 117th Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement on May 29, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision on the Plaintiff’s instant application for compensation on the ground that “the deceased’s death does not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State and the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “the Act”), based on the circumstances determined that “the deceased’s death does not constitute the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, each entry (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Article 1 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Veterans’ Compensation for the Plaintiff’s assertion that “a person who was killed or wounded during his/her work due to an accident or accident that occurred during his/her work as a usual route and method” is recognized as a veterans compensation. The deceased shall be as follows.

arrow