logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.05.26 2015구합12040
국가유공자 및 보훈보상대상자 요건 비해당결정처분 취소
Text

1. On October 19, 2015, the defendant's issuance of a memorial signboard escape certificate No. 5 to the plaintiff on October 19, 2015.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Since being appointed as a fire-fighting official on August 12, 1993, the Plaintiff performed fire-fighting and lifesaving duties, and voluntarily retired on September 1, 2014.

나. 원고는 '약 20년간 소방공무원으로서 화재진압, 인명구조 업무 등을 수행하면서 허리부위에 지속적으로 부담이 가해졌고, 2012. 8. 23. 수색업무를 수행하다가 허리를 삐끗하는 부상을 입었으며, 2012. 8. 24. 및 같은 해

9. As a result, during the performance of fire-fighting duties on 16.16, the pain of Heluri was seriously raised and the hospital was transferred to the hospital, and the protruding escape certificate No. 4-5 (hereinafter “the instant injury”) was diagnosed by the head of the Silverging military service (hereinafter “the instant injury”) and the head of Silverging military service (hereinafter “the instant injury”) No. 5-Wlverging military service certificate No. 1, the instant injury was caused by the Plaintiff’s performance of duties or education and training.

On May 26, 2015, the Defendant filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State.

C. After deliberation by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered the Plaintiff on October 19, 2015, and the Defendant rendered the instant first disposition to the Plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as “decision on the amount of distinguished service to the State”).

In relation to the second injury of this case, "non-applicable decision of the person eligible for veterans' compensation" is "the second disposition of this case."

B) In relation to the first injury of this case, the pertinent decision was made as a person eligible for veteran’s compensation. [The facts of no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Nos. 1 and 2 of the instant case suffered from the Plaintiff’s performance of fire extinguishment, lifesaving, etc. for about 20 years as fire-fighting officials. The Plaintiff’s Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the

) The Enforcement Decree (which is directly related to the security of national defense or the protection of people's lives and property provided for in sub-paragraph 2-1 to 2-2 of attached Table 1.

arrow