logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.02.15 2018구단63580
보훈보상대상자 등록 비해당 결정처분 취소청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 19, 2016, the Plaintiff joined the Marine Corps and serves as a military unit for the Marine Corps.

On August 31, 2017, the soldier was discharged from active service.

B. On January 2, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision that the Plaintiff’s left-hand slelet fever, the first half of the year, and the first half of the year constituted a soldier or policeman’s disease. However, on March 13, 2018, the Defendant rendered a non-competent decision on the registration of a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on March 13, 2018, deeming that the above wounds fell short of the criteria for disability rating.

[Judgment of the court below] Facts without a dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was done re-act with respect to the heat on the left-hand slot, the left-hand slot, but at least 10 meters of safety even thereafter. The plaintiff's disability rating constitutes class 7, class 8122.

Therefore, the instant disposition issued on a different premise should be revoked as it is unlawful.

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

C. According to Article 6-4(3) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, which is applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation, Article 14(2) and (3) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 8-3 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, “the determination of a disability rating for physical parts” of the same Act, <1> a person who has at least 1/4 of the exerciseable area of the pipe is restricted, ② a person whose safety due to damage to the pipe is at least 10 meters, ③ a person whose physical part of the pipe is at least 10 meters, ③ a person whose external part of the body part of the body part of the bridge is clearly showing the eromatic change due to damage, such as X-ray photographing, regardless of appropriate treatment.

On the other hand, the above [Attachment 4] decision on disability ratings by physical parts is about the method of measuring the safety of tolerances.

arrow