logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.11.10 2016구단1824
상이등급구분신체검사 등급판정처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. (i) On April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from active service at maturity on January 7, 2015. On January 12, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State, asserting that “The Plaintiff was subject to treatment at the Hospital on April 17, 2013 and received an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State for X-ray and CT film disc as a result of the examination of veterans examination (hereinafter “accident 18, 2015”), and that “the status of persons eligible for veteran’s compensation” was different from “the status of persons eligible for veteran’s compensation” (hereinafter “accident 1, 2015”).

B. On August 26, 2015, the Plaintiff received a new physical examination at the Central Veterans Hospital. The physical examination physician rendered a decision on “Class 7, 6109” as “Class 6, 7, and 7, 6109,” as the opinion of “the surgery was performed with a re-explic nuclear escape certificate, and the 5th Recommendation was carried out,” and the judgment was made in the 254 disability rating deliberation by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement in 2015.

On November 20, 2015, the defendant issued a "disposition of this case" to the plaintiff as a person subject to Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation, who falls under class 7 of disability rating 6109.

Applicant filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on December 23, 2015, against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said administrative appeal on May 24, 2016.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. (i) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is lawful, and that it falls under Grade 5, Grade 6104, or Grade 6, Grade 6, Section 2, 6108.

Article 6-4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, which shall apply mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 6 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation, and attached Table 3 and the Enforcement Rule of Article

arrow