beta
Text
1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on January 17, 2017 constituted the requirement for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State shall be revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 1, 2015, the Plaintiff was placed in the Army and served in the BJ, and was diagnosed as “one-party 1-party 1-party 1-party 1 (hereinafter “the instant wound”) on the knee-party 1-party 1-party 1-party 1-party 1-party 1-party 1-party 1-party 1-party 2, 2015, and
B. On September 8, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted on September 3, 2015, that he/she sustained knee injury while giving PT aid to the Defendant in the basin of genetic training, and that he/she did not receive appropriate medical treatment at a military hospital and caused the instant wounds. However, on January 17, 2017, the Defendant did not constitute the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State because he/she did not recognize that he/she was wounded in the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the protection, security, etc. of the country of distinguished service to the State, and thus, did not constitute the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State. However, it is judged that there was a proximate causal link with the occurrence or aggravation of the instant wounds in the performance of his/her duties or education and training. “The requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State
(C) On April 11, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for examination on August 8, 2017. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s 6, 7, and Eul’s 1 through 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff asserted that he had sustained kneee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee.