logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.04.06 2016구단11042
상이등급결정취소
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 disposition;

A. On December 2, 1999, the Plaintiff entered the Army and received a diagnosis of the “propin escape certificate No. 5 No. 1 in the 5th Tri-Tri-Tri-Tri-Trith on April 12, 200,” and was discharged from military service on September 8, 200 after the implementation of the propinary and expeach nuclear removal from the said wounds at the National Armed Forces Security Hospital around August 4, 200.

B. On June 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State by alleging that the escape certificate of the conical signboard No. 5-2, No. 1, and the conical signboard escape from the military service on June 19, 2015 occurred. On this basis, the Defendant rendered a decision on November 19, 2015 on the ground that “it is difficult to deem that the postical signboard escape certificate No. 5-2, no. 1, no. 5, no. 4-5, no. 4-5, no. 4-5, no. 5, no. 5, no. 5, no. 4-5, no. 5, no. 4-5, no. 5, no. 4-5, no. 4-5, no person eligible for veteran’s compensation was found to have been directly caused by the national defense and security, or the national life and property protection.”

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant issued a disposition that falls short of the grading standard on January 5, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s physical examination results that “No. 5-Tap-Tap-Tap-Tap-Tap-Tap-1, there is no aggravation or recurrence of the risk of injury.”

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 is that the plaintiff entered the Gun and received a serious pains on the Dog-ri side due to the Dog-gun, the complete Dog-gun, etc. conducted by the training center around January 10, 200, and did not receive any specific treatment. The plaintiff's assertion 1 enters the Hongcheon Dog-ri school and entered the Dog-ri school.

arrow