209Gudan8925 revocation of revocation of a decision equivalent to the requirement for persons of distinguished service.

A

The Head of the Seoul Northern Branch Office

January 18, 2010

February 8, 2010

1. The part of the Defendant’s disposition that rendered distinguished service to the Plaintiff on January 14, 2009 regarding “damage to the baby” shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff and the defendant one half.

The Defendant’s decision that rendered distinguished services to the State on January 14, 2009 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 19, 197, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from office on July 18, 1999.

B. On October 8, 2008, the Plaintiff applied for the registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant as “fluoral injury and injury (each of the instant injuries)” (hereinafter “each of the instant injuries”).

C. On January 1, 2009, the Defendant decided the Plaintiff as a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that the causal relationship between the instant wounds and the military duties cannot be acknowledged (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 5 evidence, Eul 1 and 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On May 19, 197, the Plaintiff was unable to properly clean the rain in the training center after entering the military, and was exposed to the poor environment while living in the underground room, and caused the outbreak and aggravation of the skin disease. In addition, around March 1999, the disease was damaged by being the food price to the appointed soldiers B. Accordingly, there is a proximate causal relation with the military duty, and the instant disposition was unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) As to the Defendant’s disease

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 2 and 3, it is recognized that the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a sacrick line at the Police Hospital around June 1997, around August 197, and around July 1998 when the Plaintiff was serving in the military. However, the witness C’s testimony alone is insufficient to recognize that the sacrick line was caused or rapidly aggravated due to the lack of training facilities and the poor environment. Rather, the examination and treatment for the head of the D Hospital is insufficient.

According to the results of the record appraisal, it can be known that the sufficient white line does not occur as a cleaning agent. Therefore, it cannot be recognized that there is a proximate causal relation with the military service.

(2) As to the damage of petia

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the medical records appraisal results on Gap 2 and 3 evidence, Eul's testimony, and the head of the D hospital, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff received medical treatment, such as the plaintiff's injury to the baby of the 4th unit of the nivers of the nivers of the nivers of the nivers of the nivers of the nivers of the nivers of the nivers of the nivers of the nivers of the nivers of the nivers of the nivers of the n

(3) Ultimately, the part of the instant disposition regarding the skin’s injury is lawful and unlawful.

3. Conclusion

The part of the plaintiff's claim for damage to dental services shall be cited for the reasons, and the part of the skin's disease shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Park Jong-chul