logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2019.05.10 2017누21760
국가유공자요건비해당결정취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the part for which the plaintiff asserts again, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. Additional determination

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant difference was not an advanced composition that had already occurred before entering the military.

Even if the instant difference occurred before entering the military, the instant difference occurred before entering the military.

Even if military service, there was a sudden aggravation of the natural progress at a higher speed than that of the military service.

B. Whether the instant wound constitutes an advanced organization (related to the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State) or a soldier or policeman on duty under the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State should be deemed to have a substantial causal relationship between the performance of duties, education and training, or the death or wound, and the death or wound must be the main reason for the performance of duties or education and training, which are directly related to the national defense, etc. of the State. Therefore, even if the death or wound has partially affected the performance of duties or education and training, where one’s negligence or private circumstance competes considerably to the cause of the occurrence, it is difficult to view that the performance of duties or education and training cannot be deemed to have become the main reason for the death or wound of the person of distinguished service to the State (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du4694, Jul. 27, 2016).

arrow