logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.03.08 2018구단10342
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. The Plaintiff entered the Army on July 8, 1970 and was discharged from military service on March 31, 1971.

B. On July 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that “the Plaintiff got far away from the training room while taking a shock training.”

C. On December 26, 2017, the Defendant rendered a non-specific decision on the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s name of final diagnosis during military service is “ tuberculosis L2-3”, and the relevant injury or disease falls under the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (disaster injured in a disaster), but it is not determined that a person was suffering from acuteity because of a performance of duties or education and training directly related to national defense and security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people, as a result of the performance of duties or education and training.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was discharged from military service under the diagnosis of “brate pressure pressure so as to fall off while undergoing a shock training.” Even if the Plaintiff’s disease was not a pressure frame, the Plaintiff’s disease occurred in the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the protection of national protection and security or the protection of people’s lives and property, and thus, the Plaintiff constitutes a person of distinguished service to the State. The Defendant’s disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) The former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 11041, Sept. 15, 201; hereinafter “former Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”).

x...

arrow