beta
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 Jun. 21, 1984, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on Nov. 14, 1987, with the injury of the pertinent “An accident involving the former radar on Nov. 14, 1987, No. 9, No. 10, No. 11, and No. 12, and 12.” The Plaintiff discharged from military service on July 31, 1990.
B. On March 7, 2001, the Plaintiff applied for registration of the above injury to a person who rendered distinguished services to the State, and thereby recognized the injury as a soldier or policeman on duty, and accordingly, received a new physical examination on November 20, 201, but was determined below the classification standard as “the condition after the treatment of cage cage cage cages, and the non-technical disability cage cages.”
C. Since then, the Plaintiff filed an application for a physical examination for re-verification on May 28, 2004 and received a physical examination for re-verification on August 24, 2004. As a result, the Plaintiff was found to have obstructed labor with continuous pains. As the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State was amended by Presidential Decree No. 23885 on June 27, 2012, Article 14(3) [Attachment Table 3] was deemed to be “Class 7.11,” and registered as a person of distinguished service to the State. D. The Plaintiff applied for a physical examination for re-verification of a disability rating on January 18, 2013 to be recognized as a high disability rating, and was determined as having inconvenience in physical examination at the Central Hospital’s Specialized Hospital’s Specialized Hospital’s Specialized Hospital’s Hospital’s Specialized Hospital’s Medical Examination Decision No. 175, Mar. 7, 2013. 2013.
However, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement opened on October 16, 2013 decided on October 16, 2013 to the Plaintiff on the following grounds: (a) contrary to the medical opinion of the medical specialist in charge of the foregoing physical examination, it claimed a chest pain in the form of a cage cage frame, but it is confirmed that there is no medical record related to a wound and no other objective data exists to determine the crymal disability; (b)
Accordingly, on October 21, 2013, the defendant was judged to fall short of the grade criteria as a result of the above re-examination.