(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.7.17.선고 2018구단21266 판결

A. On March 2, 2009, the Plaintiff returned to the Army as Byung, and was discharged from the Republic of Korea on December 31, 2014. On July 2, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons of distinguished services to the State with the Defendant on January 2, 2015, asserting that the Plaintiff, among the evaluations of the serious tactical training, knee is injured by plleing and maneing kneeing, during the evaluation of the serious tactical training.”

B. On January 29, 2016, the Defendant determined the Plaintiff as a person eligible for veteran's compensation only on the basis of "Manee-Mae-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-."

C. On March 30, 2018, the Defendant determined that the instant difference falls short of the grading standards after undergoing a new physical examination and deliberation and resolution by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, and notified the Plaintiff thereof (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The legality of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

All of the plaintiffs are limited to knee-gnee-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel-g

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

1) The Plaintiff’s medical treatment details

The plaintiff received the following surgery during the admission period.

○ On September 4, 2012, the right-free kne and reflective fel, half-months and fellings.

○ On September 10, 2012, the right-free kne-free and reflective fel-free single-one-one-one-one-one-one extra-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one extra-one-one-one-one-one-one extra-one-one

○ On December 20, 2012, semi-monthly diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary d

○ On January 18, 2013, both sides of the knee-gnee-gnee-gnee-gnee-gneoging treatment.

(ii) opinions of each medical specialist;

A) Opinions on the Plaintiff’s advice

Areas that can be used on the left side: 0-110, 0-110, 0-110

Obstructions remain in a restricted state with less than 3/4 of the normal movement scope of both slots.

B) Opinions of the Defendant’s physical hospital (B hospital)

Areas that can be used on the left-hand side: 0-135, 0-135

Although there is a physical disability in the Do, it does not meet the grading standards.

C) Opinions of the appraisal commission agency of this Court

O Sports area: Not less than 1/4 of both parties are restricted (the measurement of a passive control movement, radiation inspection (X-ray, MRI, etc.).).

A person shall be appointed.

○ Mane-ray’s view is observed after being on both sides of knee in radiation examination. In the X-ray’s implementation of the surgery, there is no opinion to find only to be suspected of mane infection in light of the fact that the surgery was conducted on both sides of knee, the medical history of surgery on both sides of knee, the outcome of mae-raying in radiation examination, the patient’s age, etc., “afterward infection.”

At 00, the current state of Manee-free salt is clearly shown on both sides of knee-free side, and the distance of knee-free side of both sides has decreased, and thus falls under the 2-stage phase.

A person who clearly shows a change after credit due to damage to OEM.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap 2, 3 evidence, Eul 3 and 4 evidence, results of physical appraisal and fact inquiry about C Hospital Head of this Court, and purport of the whole oral argument

D. Determination

1) In full view of the contents, structure, and purport of Article 6-4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Act on the Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 14(2) and (3) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, and Article 8-3 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, the "persons who clearly indicate efficiencies due to efficiencies from the examination such as X-ray shooting, etc." (type 3) shall be deemed to be "persons whose efficencies from the examination of efficiology is clearly impaired and whose efficiencies function is restricted by 100m or more" (type 7).

2) Examining the following circumstances revealed by the facts acknowledged earlier in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, it is insufficient to view the Plaintiff as having disability in knee-free skills, the degree of which falls under class 7 8122, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① The Plaintiff asserted that the recognition of the instant case caused on credit was limited to at least 1/4 of the exerciseable area, without completely recovering after the surgery, rather than claiming a change in ejaculation before the physical assessment result of the instant court was made. It is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff’s primary opinion alone was limited to at least 1/4 of the Plaintiff’s exerciseable area. As long as the Plaintiff’s recognition of the instant case does not clearly observe that the Plaintiff’s physical assessment result shows that the exerciseable area does not interfere with the ejacian’s will, unless the Plaintiff’s physical assessment result and the result of the Defendant’s physical examination hospital are clearly observed, the exerciseable area is deemed reasonable. In full view of the result of the instant court’s physical assessment and the result of the Defendant’s physical examination, the scope of the Plaintiff’s exerciseable area is somewhat limited, but the scope does not reach 1/4 compared to the normal area.

② According to the results of this court’s physical assessment, in the case of knee-monthly fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-fele-gel-gel-gel-gel-gel

③ The change in the Plaintiff knee mae-Hee-Hew was diagnosed at two levels, where the distance of audience is clearly narrow and the gap is clearly visible in this court’s physical assessment result and inquiry inquiry inquiry. However, the aforementioned diagnosis method is based on the cryp-Lex-Hrr. However, even if the above cryp is determined based on the characteristics of the radiation of the mae-pnee-pnee-patitis, it seems that the opinion of academic circles still appears to have been divided about whether the cryp status is positive or actual functional level and correlation. Even if the Plaintiff’s physical impact was limited by the crypitis, the degree does not reach 1/4, but the level does not fall under the cryp function disorder stipulated in class 7th 8122, even if the Plaintiff’s physical impact was limited by the crypitis. Moreover, it is difficult to see that the cryp-He-We-We-We-We no other functional data can be found.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.