logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2016.03.18 2015누6089
국가유공자요건비해당결정취소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the determination of the person who rendered distinguished services to the State and the person eligible for veteran’s compensation. The first instance court dismissed the part seeking revocation of the determination of the person who rendered distinguished services to the State, and cited the part seeking revocation of the determination of the person eligible for veteran’s compensation. Accordingly, since the Plaintiff did not appeal and only the Defendant appealed, the subject of the judgment is limited to the part seeking revocation of the determination of the person eligible for veteran’s compensation

2. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 11, 2006, the Plaintiff entered the Army and completed a new training course at the Edsan Training Center, and served at the 65 Boscopium, and was discharged from military service on August 8, 2007.

B. On February 26, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant on the ground that the “Sslova-Slovas Esstal Esstal Esstal Esstal Esstal Esstal Esstal Esstal Esstal Esstal Esstal Esstal Essstal Esst

C. On August 27, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision on the Plaintiff’s non-conformity of the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The injury or disease in the instant case appears to have been on active duty or education and training before entering the army, and is not recognized as injury or disease that was incurred during military service.”

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a leading player, and he was administered to the right knee in the right knee, but he was completely cured and without any particular impediment to military service. While he was in the military service on January 2007, he was in the military service, he was over the right knee in the right knee, and he was in the long-distance knee in the state of the head of the complete military service around March 2007 after he was placed in the knee.

arrow