logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.03.18 2015구합9766
국립묘지안장대상비해당결정취소
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 August 4, 1958, the Plaintiff’s R&C (hereinafter “C”) entered the Navy on the part of August 4, 1958 and was Vietnam Wared from 1967 to 1968, and discharged from military service on October 31, 1992.

The Deceased was registered as a person of distinguished service to the State on February 3, 2014 and died on May 10, 2015.

B. On September 1, 1961, the Deceased was sentenced to a suspended sentence of five months for a period of five months as a criminal fact of the crime of the crime of the escape in wartime during nine months from November 3, 1960 to August 17, 1961 (hereinafter “instant crime”).

C. Upon the death of the deceased, on May 11, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for laying the deceased to rest in the Seoul National Cemetery. The Defendant requested the National Cemetery Deliberation Committee (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”) to deliberate on whether the deceased would be buried in the National Cemetery.

On June 29, 2015, the National Cemetery Deliberation Committee deliberated and resolved on the deceased’s eligibility for burial expenses on the ground that “the honor of national cemeteries would be damaged,” as prescribed by Article 5(4)5 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of National Cemeteries (hereinafter “National Cemetery Act”). On July 9, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision that the deceased could not be buried in the National Cemetery, to the effect that the deceased would not be buried in the National Cemetery.

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(ii) [The facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap's 1 to 3, 5 to 8, Eul's 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the deceased was sentenced to suspended execution for the instant crime, but the instant crime was caused by the deceased’s failure to find a solution method in the situation where the deceased’s failure to return to work after his leave was caused by his fault on the part of his superior officer within the unit where the deceased worked. Furthermore, the deceased’s own after about nine months.

arrow