beta
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 22, 2010, the Plaintiff (Bed male) entered the Army and belonged to CJ. Around January 201, 201, the Plaintiff was appointed as CJ assistant and worked as assistant instructors from the Second Military Education Team and was discharged from military service on April 4, 2012.
B. In April 201, in the military service period, the Plaintiff first experienced symptoms leading to the crypting of the atmosphere, and around September 201, the Plaintiff received outpatient treatment at the Armed Forces Gyeyang Hospital and the hospitalization treatment at the Armed Forces Waterworks Hospital. The diagnosis name was “the remaining cryp of opening cryp,” “other cryp,” and “high pressure.”
C. After that, the Plaintiff had been discharged from active service, and had been suffering from symptoms that cannot be seen at night. On February 25, 2013, the Seoul National University Hospital provided an scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic s
D.
On December 2014, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State to the Defendant on the basis of an application for the recording of the unit (hereinafter referred to as “instant wounds”).
E. However, on April 16, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision that the Plaintiff’s instant wound does not constitute a soldier or policeman under Article 2(1)2 of the former Act on the Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 13608, Dec. 22, 2015; hereinafter “former Act on the Compensation of Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”) on the grounds that (i) the Plaintiff’s instant wound was caused by the performance of military duties or education and training directly related to the national defense, or (ii) the occurrence or aggravation of proximate causal relation with military duties or education and training was not recognized; and (ii) the Plaintiff did not constitute a soldier or policeman on duty under Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”).