2016Nu20807 Revocation of Disposition Rejecting Persons of Distinguished Service to State

A

Head of Ulsan National Veterans Organization

Ulsan District Court Decision 2015Guhap5348 Decided April 7, 2016

October 28, 2016

November 18, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition to refuse to grant a person who rendered distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran's compensation on March 9, 2015 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The defendant's disposition rejecting a person's veteran's compensation rendered to the plaintiff on March 9, 2015 is revoked.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

On March 9, 2015, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition rejecting a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State or a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State. The first instance court dismissed all of the Plaintiff’s claims. As such, the Plaintiff did not appeal to the part claiming revocation of the disposition rejecting a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State while appealed, the scope of the judgment in the first instance court stated that the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the disposition rejecting a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State is limited to the part claiming revocation of the disposition rejecting a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State (On the other hand, on April 6, 2015, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition rejecting a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State, while submitting an amendment to the purport of the first instance court’s claim on March 9, 2016, and added the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the disposition rejecting a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State, with the exception of whether the duty or education and training is directly related to the national defense and security or the protection of the lives and property of the people.

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the following three additional judgments, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Additional determination (as to the determination of whether a person is not eligible for veteran's compensation during the disposition in this case)

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the evidence set forth in the judgment of the first instance court, Eul evidence No. 5-1 and 2, the National Health Insurance Corporation of the first instance, and the Seoul Hospital of the Macheon National University, the fact-finding results of the fact-finding conducted by the Plaintiff on the basis of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and the result of the entrustment of the examination of medical records to the head of the Seoul Hospital of the first instance court of the first instance, it is difficult to find that there is a proximate causal relation, such as the instant difference rapidly aggravated at a natural progress speed due to the performance of military duties

① On July 1, 2009, the Plaintiff has already been engaged in the ecurology of 1.92§¯/dL, 49.91ml/mination (normal value of 100 to 120ml/min) with a ecurology of 49.91ml/mination, so that the Plaintiff’s ecurine function has been reduced to approximately 50% of the Plaintiff’s age base, and the patients with three patients with three diseases with a chronic bedneney disease of the chronic bedne, are required to measure the ecurine ecurine and the ecurine ecurine ecurine ecurine ecurine ecurine ecurine ecurine ecurine ecurine ecurine ecurine ecurine ecurine ecurine ecurine ecur ecur. In addition, there are no symptoms symptoms 1 through e.

② After undergoing an examination for extension around May 25, 2012, the Plaintiff did not undergo a further examination until November 12, 2013, the time of entering the Gun. There was no details of treatment for chronic renals or high blood pressure, etc. (the Plaintiff, immediately before entering the Gun, had received treatment from the urology clinic due to the urbology around October 21, 2013 and October 23, 2012, but there was no data related to the urbology.)

③ The Plaintiff did not undergo a test and treatment with respect to chronic renal diseases for a period of one year and six months before entering the military. As the Plaintiff did not undergo a proper blood test and pharmacologic treatment, it cannot be ruled out that the chronic renal failure has deteriorated beyond the natural progress speed from before entering the military due to failure to undergo a proper blood test and pharmacologic treatment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge, Gimcheoncheon

Judges, Clinicals

Judges Lee Young-young