logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.05.27 2014구단51855
보훈보상대상자 등록결정처분 취소의 소
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 May 3, 2011, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on February 2, 2013 at the headquarters of the headquarters of the 22th Order of the Army, the headquarters of the 53th Order of the 22th Order of the Army.

B. On March 6, 2013, the Plaintiff brought an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State to the Defendant for a traffic accident in the military, under which he/she was suffering from the wounds of the “Annanp, the right-hand arms, and the left-hand garment

C. On October 7, 2013, following the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant: (a) recognized the Plaintiff as wounded in the performance of military duties or during education and training; (b) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not fall under the requirements of Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, on the ground that it is not directly related to the national defense or the protection of the people’s lives and property; (c) determined that the Plaintiff fell under the requirements of Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Support for Persons of Distinguished Services, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, on the ground that it does not fall under the requirements of Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, on the ground that there is no direct relation to the national defense or the protection of the people’s lives and property.

On October 30, 2013, the Defendant conducted a physical examination with the Plaintiff at the Central Veterans Hospital on October 30, 2013, and on December 19, 2013, the Plaintiff’s “the structural frame of the fright-of-face fright-of-face fright-to-face fright-to-face fright-to-face fright-to-face 2411 of the disability rating” constituted “the fright-to-face fright-to-face fright-to-face fright-to-face fright-to-face fright-to-face fright-to-face fright, the fright-to-face fright-to-face fright-to-face fright-to-face fright, the fright-to-face fright-to-face fright, and the outer wall fright-to-face fright-to-face” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

arrow