logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.11.30 2014구단4430
국가유공자불승인처분 취소
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 December 30, 1950, the Plaintiff entered the Army and participated in the 625 War, and was discharged from military service on August 12, 1951.

B. On November 29, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not have any objective supporting materials to prove that the Plaintiff sustained the said application while in combat action or in the performance of duties corresponding thereto, on the ground that there was no objective supporting materials to prove that the Plaintiff sustained the said application,” by means of the following deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Plaintiff did not constitute a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that it did not constitute a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State.”

C. The Plaintiff appealed against the above disposition and filed an administrative litigation against the Defendant, but was sentenced to a judgment against the Plaintiff in the first instance (Seoul High Court 2013Nu22149). The Plaintiff appealed (Seoul High Court 2013Nu22149) and the final appeal (Supreme Court 2014Du6692) but all dismissed and the judgment against the first instance court became final and conclusive.

In other words, on July 31, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) received training at the Daegu workers’ plant on December 1950; (b) obtained diversity due to dust, soil, dust, etc.; (c) on May 20, 1951, the Plaintiff fell from the normal fluorial operations of the Daegu Army Non-Ampicis, thereby suffering from head damage, pulmonary damage, etc.; and (d) discharged from the hospital 1 in Daegu and the 5th Army Hospital in Busan, due to the absence of treatment while receiving follow-up treatment; and (c) stated that “the instant difference” was “the injury of fluoral brain damage and pathal damage; (d) the upper part of the fluoralone; (e) the upper part of the fluoralone; (e) the left part of the fluoralone; (e) the pulmonal disorder caused by damage to the right side and fluoral damage.”

shall apply for re-registration to the defendant on the basis of the applicant.

arrow