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 April 3, 1969, the Plaintiff (BB and male) entered the Army, and was assigned to the 50th group No. 121 solidarity. On March 15, 1970, the Plaintiff was hospitalized to the 1st Army Hospital on the 1970 when working on coastal boundary in the Gyeong Young-gu area, and was hospitalized to the 1st Army Hospital on March 15, 1970, and was treated with a diagnosis, and was discharged from military service on March 4, 1972.
B. On February 2, 2004, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State by asserting that “the instant wound was caused due to serious sacrificing and saculity of a superior in the military service.” On May 24, 2004, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “previous disposition”) on the ground that “The Plaintiff was hospitalized in the instant wound during the military service, but it was not recorded that the Plaintiff was hospitalized in relation to his official duties, but it was not recorded that the disease, such as the instant wound, occurred on the Plaintiff’s beds, and caused the recurrence and sacrifies of sacrifies for a long time due to a disease that repeateds the recurrence and sacrifies in the instant wound, it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the instant wound and the military service” (hereinafter “previous disposition”).
Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation against the Defendant seeking revocation of the previous disposition as the Ulsan District Court 2004Guhap2732, and the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on January 12, 2005, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
C. On August 27, 2007 and October 17, 2008, the Plaintiff again filed an application for the registration of each person of distinguished service to the Defendant on the ground that “it is impossible to confirm additional evidence to reverse the previous disposition,” and thus, rejected each registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant.”
On December 9, 2014, the Plaintiff continues to serve in the military and has high strength.