logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2021.02.19 2019구단6837
국가유공자요건비해당결정취소
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 September 20, 2016, the Plaintiff’s son B (hereinafter “the Deceased”) entered the Army on August 20, 2016, and was discharged from active service on June 19, 2018.

B. On May 2017, the deceased claimed that “the deceased was diagnosed that there were symptoms, such as two pains, high heat, etc. from May 24, 2017 when he/she was on duty as a driver’s disease at the margin of the Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds of Weds.”

The Deceased died on September 1, 2018.

(c)

In this regard, the defendant, following the deliberation of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, should be deemed to have been directly caused by the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the national security or the protection of the people's life and property. However, on February 11, 2019, the defendant decided that the wounded in this case and the deceased's performance of their military duties constituted the requirements for compensation and veterans (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case") in comparison with the requirements for the State meritorious service (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case") in comparison with the requirements for meritorious service of the State. [The grounds for recognition]] There is no dispute over the fact that Gap's evidence No. 1, Eul's evidence No. 1, Eul's evidence No. 1, 2, 4, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the deceased did not receive medical treatment or treatment due to disease related to leuk blood disease, and neither he nor she did tobacco nor alcohol after entering the hospital, nor did he/she have family records related to leuk blood transfusion.

arrow