logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.03.08 2018구합61895
국가유공자 등록 거부처분 등 취소
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 May 9, 1958, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on March 2, 1961, and was discharged from military service on March 2, 1961. The Plaintiff was a child of B (the deceased on July 16, 1983; hereinafter “the deceased”).

On November 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that the deceased’s “exploitation, sale, salle, sale, sale, typhe, and styphe” (hereinafter “instant wounds”) was different from the deceased’s “exploitation, sale,”

B. On December 19, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration with the Defendant on the same ground.

On April 20, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision that the Plaintiff does not meet the requirements of Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc.”) and Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc.”) on the basis of the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with each of the dispositions in this case and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the request for administrative appeal was dismissed on January 16, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he had been in the military service, had been on the head and on the bridge, and had been on the bridge even after having been discharged from military service due to a disease such as typhoid, etc.

arrow