logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.03.08 2017구단28443
국가유공자등록거부처분및보훈보상대상자등록거부처분취소
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 6, 1969, the Plaintiff entered the Army and served in Vietnam War from January 6, 1971 to March 28, 1972, but was discharged from military service on July 7, 1972.

B. On September 21, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that a disguised disease (in the instant case) occurred due to an inferior working environment (hereinafter “instant injury”) and applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State to the Defendant on September 21, 2016.

C. The Defendant did not recognize the instant wounds as the soldier or policeman wounded in action, soldier or policeman wounded on action, soldier or policeman wounded on action, and soldier or policeman wounded on action, and the Act on the Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc.”) and the Act on the Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “Act on Persons, etc.”) on January 12, 2017, based on the review and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement to the Plaintiff on January 12, 2017, based on the following facts: (a) the record of being discharged from military service on the military register is confirmed; (b) the military records were not preserved; (c) the military records were not preserved; and (d) there was no proximate causal relation with the military duties; and (d) there was no proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s duty during action, in addition to the Plaintiff’s statement.

Accordingly, on March 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was ruled by the Central Administrative Appeals Commission that all Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's body is healthy.

arrow