(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.08.27 2014구단574

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.08.27 2014구단574

국가유공자 및 보훈보상대상자 요건 비해당결정처분취소청구

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 October 22, 2013, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on February 26, 2014 while serving in the Army.

B. On March 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of merit with the following reasons: (a) on the ground that “Is X-ray in the National Armed Forces (hereinafter “the instant case”) was diagnosed as the front Cross, the inner half of the first half of the year, and was diagnosed as the first half of the year, and the first half of the year, the front half of the year, and the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, and the first half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, and the first half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, and the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, and the second half of the year,” on March 10, 2014.

C. On July 9, 2014, following the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement to the purport that “it is difficult to regard the instant wound as an injury incurred on December 2013, 201,” the Defendant rendered a decision non-conformity of persons who rendered distinguished service to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that “the instant wound and the performance of duty

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). 【No ground for recognition”, 【No ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. On June 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that he was admitted to the Plaintiff was only knee-free and knee-free in the field of knee-feeee-feeee-feeee-fee-feee-fee-fee-ge-ge-ge-ge-ge-ge-ge-ge-ge-ge

A normal judgment was also issued in the pre-entry draft physical.

However, on December 14, 2013, after entering the bar, knenee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee kne kne knee knee knee knee knee s

유사 판례

-광주고등법원 2016.11.17 2015누6650

-부산지방법원 2015.08.19 2015구단20279

-부산고등법원 창원재판부 2015.7.1.선고 2014누11918 판결

-의정부지방법원 2018.07.24 2018구합12300

-광주지방법원 2015.12.17 2015구단10356