The revocation of revocation of a decision that falls under the requirements of persons of distinguished service to the State, 207

A

The Head of Daejeon Regional Veterans Administration

208,5.22

June 12, 2008

1. The defendant's decision on June 20, 2007 that constitutes a person who rendered distinguished services to the State shall be revoked. 2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 21, 1974, the Plaintiff served in the Army as Second Lieutenant, and was discharged from the retirement age on January 31, 2003. From September 1976 to May 1987, the transport officer was exposed for a long time to air combat machine and aircraft noise while serving in the Seoul Airfield and its front and rear unit. From October 1990 to January 2, 192, the Plaintiff continued to receive treatment from the 10DB by exposure to aircraft engines for 10DB for 100DB noise and received from the Defendant during the 10-year aviation noise test, especially 0-year aviation noise from the 1990 to July 2002, 200, 200 or more of the aviation noise from the 10-year aviation noise test. This was caused by exposure to aircraft noise from the 10-year aviation noise and 10-year aviation noise.

B. On June 20, 2007, the defendant did not have objective data to verify the situation of the outbreak in addition to the statement of friendship, and on the ground that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship with the person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that it was confirmed from April 2006 that the medical certificate of the Daejeon Veterans Hospital was given medical treatment related to the instant wound from around three years after discharge, and that it was difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship with the person of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1-1, No. 1-2, 2, and 3-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On December 21, 1974, the Plaintiff was in the so-called transport branch, and was assigned to the position of an aircraft maintenance officer from July 1976, and was in the operation of helicopters on January 31, 2003, after receiving the operation training of helicopters around 1987.

During the military service period, the Plaintiff worked for C (O. 30. - 16. 1992) and D (O. 17. 17. 1992) and E (O. 14. - 1994. 21. 14. 1993), P (O. 22. 195, Dec. 25, 1994), G (O. 11.- 1999. 29. 199) and H (O. 199. 30- - 1999. 19. 16. 19. 19. 1. 19. 1. 19. 1. 19. 1. 19. 1. 19. 1. 19. 19. 1. 19. 19. 19. 19. 19. 10. 19. 200. 2). 2. 2.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Military service, etc.

(A) On December 21, 1974, the Plaintiff served as the Second Lieutenant on December 21, 1974, and was discharged from the retirement age on January 31, 2003, and the total flight hours from November 1, 1993 to the time of discharge reach 1,099 hours.

(B) The Plaintiff, as an aviation officer of the Gun, mainly engaged in the operation and maintenance of helicopters. From October 31, 1990 to January 16, 1992, the Plaintiff, while serving as C and I, performed duties, such as the entry, exit, process control, and test flight, with respect to the wing aircraft (UH-IH, 500 MD, AH-J/S). At the time of a test flight vehicle to be carried out in high altitude (8,00-10,000 feet). The Plaintiff was treated as an outer salt on August 1991.

(C) From January 11, 1997 to April 29, 199, the Plaintiff was in office as G, while performing activities for the management of J-Ha-J units, the inspection of preparedness for combat, and the prevention of aircraft safety. During the process of performing the above duties, the Plaintiff was exposed to the noise generated in the course of directly operating or moving helicopters at the time of their dispatch and the noise generated in the course of their flight and the inspection of towing units (18 to 24 units) at the time of their dispatch, and the noise generated in the course of their own operation or moving of helicopters at the time of their operation, and the noise generated in the course of their vessel operation, and the shooting noise generated in the course of their vessel operation, which is 70 times or more, generated in the course of their vessel operation, was exposed to the Plaintiff, who had been in office as K at the time of their operation, and complained of any defect in Cheong-J-Jing, and was not adversely treated at the time of their operation.

(D) The Plaintiff worked as H from April 30, 1999 to April 17, 200, while performing the overall work of maintaining the aircraft. At the time, the Plaintiff was exposed to the flight noise of 08:30 to 11:30, 13:30 to 16:30, and 24 aircraft noise of 08:30 to 13:30 to 16:30 as the Plaintiff’s office is located in the moorings and the center of the runway with a large amount of aircraft noise, and was exposed to the aircraft noise during the course of performing the work of testing and supervising the aircraft of 5 times each working day, and checking the state. Accordingly, the Plaintiff complained of ear’s pain to N who had worked as M, and it was difficult for the Plaintiff to drink him, but it could be excluded from the hospital if it is judged that the health condition at the time of selecting a person to be promoted is not good.

(E) On April 2006, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by the Daejeon Veterans Hospital as the "Magneneal dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty".

(F) According to the study on countermeasures against noise of military aircraft published by the National Defense Graduate School, a noise exceeding 100dB is likely to cause honest disorder beyond a slick, and noise generated from aircraft, especially 120-130dB at a point of 100 meters in the frontline when taking off, the noise generated from the t engine can cause honest decline and damage after measuring 130-140dB in the vicinity of 25 meters.

(2) Medical opinions

(A) Distress is a mixture of clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral clateral

There are infections, drugs, damage to fetus in the time of delivery, and the malmology, noise, fluence, lusium, lusium, lusium, external wound, virus infection, cerebral infection, meconium, meconium, medication, etc.

(B) As a result of the Defendant’s medical advice on August 31, 191, the Plaintiff’s medical consultation showed that there was no heavy chrony, high tension, etc. other than the records given to the Plaintiff on August 31, 1991, and that the noise was exposed for a long time without obvious credit. No pure chronological chronysis does not occur due to the mixture of mix with the cronological chronological chrony, which is the mixed with the mix of the cronological chronological chrony,. In the Plaintiff’s lack of objective proof materials, it is difficult to recognize the relationship between the cronological chronological chrony and the official duties.

(C) Opinions of the director of the Chungcheongnamnam University Hospital

The test was conducted on September 6, 2007 at the right 35dB, the left-hand 45dB, and both sides were cut down in a ethic test. In the case of the plaintiff, the noise level of noise caused by long-term noise exposure in light of the history of seaing the pilot's service for 30 years, etc.

[Ground of recognition] 1-1, Gap evidence 2, 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 5, 6, and 7-1, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 4, 5, 6, 12, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

D. Determination

According to the following circumstances revealed by the above facts, the plaintiff was exposed to aircraft noise for a long time while serving as an aviation officer during the military service period, and around August 1991 when the plaintiff served as an air officer. In particular, when the plaintiff worked as G from January 11, 1997 to April 29, 199, and when he served as H from April 30, 199 to April 17, 200, it was found that there was no possibility that noise above 100 dB of the military aircraft was interfered with Cheongsung’s noise due to the promotion, etc. The plaintiff could not be viewed as being exposed to the medical noise of this case due to the fact that the plaintiff was exposed to the medical noise of this case more than 100 dB of the military service after being exposed to the medical noise of this case.

Therefore, since the difference between the Plaintiff and the instant case may be deemed to have occurred during the performance of his duties as a soldier, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Cho Young-kon