(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.11.10 2017구합112

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) 춘천지방법원 2017.11.10 2017구합112

국가유공자비해당결정처분취소

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 the disposition;

A. The plaintiff entered the Army on October 22, 1970 and discharged the plaintiff from military service on May 31, 1972.

B. On March 30, 2016, the Plaintiff rendered an application for registration (including persons eligible for veteran’s compensation) to the Defendant on the ground that “The Plaintiff incurred a decline in the left-hand side of the train while getting earth from the military freight truck at the time of maintenance and repair of the shooting range (hereinafter “instant accident”) due to a decline in the chilling of departure from the left-hand side of the train and a chilling of the chilling root (hereinafter “instant accident”) (hereinafter “the instant wound”).

C. On July 12, 2016, the Defendant rendered each of the instant dispositions to the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant wounds were not attributable to the Plaintiff in the course of performing his duty or education and training.

(B) notify the Corporation of the fact that there is no dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 (if any, including a number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. Since proximate causal relation is recognized between the Plaintiff’s assertion and the instant wound, each of the instant dispositions that the Plaintiff did not constitute a person who rendered distinguished service to the State and a person eligible for veteran’s compensation is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) On January 7, 1971, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the 103-after-the-counter hospital. At the time, the Ministry of Health and Welfare stated that “The 16-year-day-day-day-day-day-day-day-day-day-day-day-day-day-day-day-day-day-day-day-day-day-of-the-day-day-day-day-day-day-of-the-day-day-day-day-long-day-day-of-the-day-day-day-long-day-day-long-day-day-long-day-long-day-of-the-day-day-day-year-year-old-day-of-the-day-day-day-long-day-day-of-the-day-day-day-long-day-of-the-day-day-day-day-of-the-day-day-day-day-of-the-day-day-the-day-day-day-day-day-day-day-day-law

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 (춘천) 2018.05.09 2017누1228

-서울행정법원 2017.06.14 2017구단10527

-서울행정법원 2020.04.22 2020구단254

-부산고등법원 2015.06.19 2014누21066

-청주지방법원 2018.08.23 2017구합270