logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.11.28 2016구단10894
국가유공자요건비해당결정취소
Text

1. The Defendant’s decision that rendered the Plaintiff on November 21, 2016 constituted a non-conformity of the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State shall be revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. The plaintiff entered the Army on January 17, 2006 and was assigned to the third company Class B, and served as the 4.2 human spambling spackspackspackspackspackspackspackspackspacks, and discharged the plaintiff on September 6, 2006 from the line of duty due to the escape certificate

On August 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the Defendant, alleging that he was injured due to unreasonable training during military service. On November 21, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision that the Plaintiff’s “propon escape certificate No. 4-5 (after the post-proponed propon propon propon propon (hereinafter “the instant wound”) did not fall under the requirements of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Act”), but falls under the requirements of the Act on the Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State”). (hereinafter “the instant wound determined that the instant wound does not meet the requirements of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State”).

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s difference in the Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a soldier or policeman on duty under the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, which constitutes a soldier or policeman on duty, since the Plaintiff’s difference in the Plaintiff’s assertion occurred due to the Plaintiff’s 4.2 personal training during military service

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. The facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff entered the Army on January 17, 2006 and was treated as C students under the name of “the following hynasium” at D Hospital on December 6, 2001. On November 26, 2005, the Plaintiff received treatment under the name of “the other hynas and tensions of the so-called hynas and tensions of the so-called hynasium and the so-called hynasium.” 2) On January 17, 2006, the Plaintiff entered the Army on February 27, 2006.

The plaintiff is awarded 4.2 human dignity straws.

arrow