beta
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 March 7, 2006, the deceased B (CB; hereinafter “the deceased”) was placed at the 12 master body located in the Gangwon-do human body on March 17, 2008, and was discharged from military service on March 17, 2008, and died on November 18, 2016.
B. On February 2017, the Plaintiff, who is the father of the Deceased, used the term “mental division” in the past as the result of a medical examination due to the stress that occurred while in the military service, such as radism and pathy, and immediately after her expulsion, the deceased used the term “mental division.” However, around 2011, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with the term “Madern’s disease.” After being diagnosed with the medical examination, the deceased applied for the registration of a person of distinguished service to the State by asserting that he/she did not properly appeal to the pain on November 18, 2016, even though he/she was suffering from pain on the part of the body of the deceased on November 16, 2016, who was living in a social welfare facility, but was in the process of taking care of his/her body and treatment, and by asserting that he/she applied for the registration of a person of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “Madern’s disease”).
C. On May 29, 2017, following the deliberation of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant issued an appropriate disposition against persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and a disposition equivalent to the person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) on the ground that “The instant wounds were recognized as having caused proximate causal link with the performance of duties or education and training directly related to national security, etc., or cannot be deemed as having caused occurrence or aggravation of causal link with other duties or education and training. Therefore, the Defendant did not meet the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 8, 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The case.