2013Guide 1044 Manopoly decided to meet the requirements for persons of distinguished service

1. A;

2. B

The head of Gwangju Regional Veterans Administration

March 27, 2014

May 22, 2014

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant's disposition of non-conformity with the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran's compensation against the plaintiffs on July 24, 2013 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are parents of the network C (hereinafter referred to as “the network”).

B. On September 25, 1976, the deceased enlisted in the military on July 15, 1976, and was on duty for day-to day-day with the relocation to the DD combat police units, and on November 20, 1976, the deceased was on duty at the coast guard in the Dolung-gun E located in the Dolung-gun Police Station. On November 30, 1976, the deceased was on duty and died. The plaintiff A filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on November 30, 2004. However, on August 26, 2005, the defendant confirmed that the deceased was on duty of a person of distinguished service to the State, and confirmed that the deceased was on duty at the time of 20:00 to 04:00 on November 20, 1976 on duty at the coast guard, but was on duty under the direction of the National Police Agency to verify the status of a person of distinguished service to the State.

D. Since then, although the plaintiff A filed the instant case with the Military Literature Finding Committee, on March 26, 2008, it cannot be determined whether the deceased was presumed to have committed suicide by using his guns, and whether there was a harsh conduct by the senior members of the deceased before the deceased's death, and thus, it cannot be determined that the deceased's failure to identify the truth of the deceased's death was impossible. Accordingly, the plaintiff A filed an objection, but was dismissed on July 23, 2008.

E. On October 15, 2013, the plaintiffs submitted an application for re-registration of persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State on October 24, 2013, but the defendant stated that high-ranking soldiers died by frequent sacity and cruel acts by appointment, and that there was sacrificing, cruel acts and sacrificings against the deceased in the content of the investigation by the Military Empicium, but this stated that the members who worked in the first place, such as the deceased, or those who worked in the second place, after the deceased died, stated that they were killed by the deceased, and that there was 0 military education and training for those who have rendered distinguished service to the State on July 24, 2013 (the 20th anniversary of the fact that there was no evidence to conclude that their statements were above the deceased, and that there was no other members who worked in the first place, such as the deceased, in an administrative trial, dismissal in the military judgment, and that there was no direct reason for the death or change of circumstances in the State’s duty.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 3, 5 to 8, 12, Eul's 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

In the event that the deceased committed suicide, it is clear that the deceased failed to take an unfair order or a difficult attendance of an appointed soldier within the unit at the time of the suicide. There was no motive or reason for the deceased to commit suicide as a consequence of love with his parents siblings. The core of the resolution of the instant case on whether the deceased was a simple suicide or a harsh act was a baby, and according to F’s written opinion, it is certain that there was a book or other correspondence. However, even though it was not known at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, it was referred to as the basis for the existence of a judgment on suicide rather than a suicide. If it was shown at the time of the death, it could not be known that there was a serious reason for the death of the deceased, and thus, there was no reason to believe that the instant disposition was an unlawful act, as well as that of this case.

B. Determination

In light of the circumstances leading up to death by self-injury such as suicide, it is difficult to view that there is no reasonable and reasonable ground to believe that such act was committed by the 20th National Police Agency based on the premise that the deceased was committed on the ground that there was a conflict of intention or negligence between the deceased and his/her bereaved family members at the time of death by 200, and that there was no evidence to acknowledge that there was no reason to believe that it was committed on the ground that there was no reason to believe that there was no reason to believe that there was no reason to believe that the act was committed on the 20th time of death by 20, based on the fact that there was no reason to believe that there was no reason to believe that there was no reason to believe that there was no reason to believe that there was no reason to believe that there was no reason to believe that there was no reason to believe that there was no reason to believe that there was no reason to believe that there was death by self-injury in the 20th time of death by 1, 2013.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yu Young-chul