(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.10.26 2015구단168

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.10.26 2015구단168

국가유공자요건비해당결정처분취소

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of disposition;

A. On January 4, 201, the Plaintiff, who was admitted to the Army on April 5, 201 and was discharged from military service on the date of maturity on January 4, 2013, filed an application for registration of persons of distinguished service to the State with the Defendant on July 17, 2014, by applying for the application for each of the pagal chronology and the right name (hereinafter “the instant difference”).

B. On November 18, 2014, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff that the instant wound did not meet the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State or persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is not acknowledged that the instant wound was caused in the course of performing military duties or education and training, or that the proximate causal relation with military duties or education and training was not recognized.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. After completing the Plaintiff’s argument training, the Plaintiff was placed on November 2, 201, and the Plaintiff was placed on the part of the Plaintiff, and then was placed on the part of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was placed on the part of the Defendant and was placed on the part of the Defendant. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not receive the treatment of the injury of this case before entering the military, and there were no environmental factors to receive the injury of this case other than military service, the disposition of this case was unlawful, even if there was no proximate causal relation between the military and the instant military service or education and training, on the premise that there was no other premise, even though there was a difference between the military and the instant case and the instant education and training.

(b) The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition are as follows: Gap evidence 4 to 7, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 4 and 5, and this Court.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2016.01.27 2015구단20309

-대구지방법원 2014.08.22 2014구단347

-서울행정법원 2014.03.06 2012구단28530

-대구지방법원 2014.12.12 2014구단873

-서울고등법원 2016.02.02 2015누55433