logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.10.10 2017구단7881
적용대상구분 변경거부처분 등 취소 청구의 소
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 June 3, 2014, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and was discharged from active service on May 18, 2015 (or sick and wounded).

B. From July 11, 2014 to August 201, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) served as an administrative soldier assigned to 3985 unit B; (b) was dispatched to Apdddiology training (hereinafter “B training”); (c) on August 25, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he/she had rendered distinguished services to the State on June 30, 2015; and (d) on August 19, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he/she had been eligible for veteran’s compensation for any of the accidents that fall short of stairs for night training (hereinafter “instant accident”).

Since then, the plaintiff was judged as "Class 7 6109" as a result of a new physical examination on the No. 1 of this case and registered as a soldier and police officer.

C. On March 22, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s protruding escape certificate L3-4, L5-S1 (hereinafter “instant No. 2”) was caused by the instant accident, and filed an application for registration of persons of distinguished service to the State with the Defendant, claiming that the instant No. 1 recognized the same as a soldier or policeman wounded on duty and applied for the change of applicable classification and the instant No. 2 as additional status.

Accordingly, on June 20, 2016, the Defendant is called the Plaintiff’s non-applicable decision for correction of the subject classification (hereinafter “instant Disposition 1”) and the Defendant’s non-applicable decision for additional appropriation (hereinafter “instant Disposition 2”).

E) The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant Disposition Nos. 1 and 2, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the appeal on September 20, 2016 (the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling to dismiss the appeal on September 20, 2016. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in the instant Disposition No. 1, 2, 3, and 3-1, 2-1, 3-2, and 3-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Disposition Nos. 1 and 2 of this case

arrow