logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.08.30 2017구단10947
보훈보상대상자 비대상 결정 처분 취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of disposition;

A. On July 7, 1989, the Plaintiff entered the Army as a private soldier and was discharged from military service on October 31, 1991.

B. On December 15, 1990, the Plaintiff received a diagnosis of the 2nd degree of sacrife and sacrife and sacrife (hereinafter “the instant wound”) from the participation in the combat sports, and applied for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation. On January 6, 2015, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement decided that the person falls under the former part of Article 2(1)2(b) of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation, etc., but the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that the person falls short of the criteria for disability rating under Article 6-4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”).

C. On May 10, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground of the instant wound, but the Defendant applied for registration on July 17, 2017 pursuant to attached Table pursuant to Article 14(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished

3. The person eligible for veteran’s compensation under Article 2(1)2(b) of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation on the ground that he/she falls short of the disability rating classification table (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is illegal;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) as follows: (a) in the course of determining a disability rating for the “the Second Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal E

4. Functional disorder of a mental disorder or neurosis;

B. 4) Determination of applicable grade 4) “A person who has ordinary ability to work but has a strong common sense at the time, thereby hindering labor” shall be deemed to be “a person who has a strong common sense,” and shall be deemed to be “ class 7.”

arrow