beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the court of first instance
A. On May 27, 2013, the key issue of the instant case asserted that a person who rendered distinguished services to the State and applied for registration of persons eligible for veteran’s compensation by asserting that his military service did not constitute the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State and the Act on the Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation, on the ground that the Plaintiff was diagnosed after about 42 years from discharge of the instant wounds and that the direct causal relationship with his duty at the time of military service was not recognized. The Defendant rejected the registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation by notifying
(hereinafter “instant disposition.” The key issue of this case is whether there is a proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s performance of duties and the instant difference during Vietnam War.
B. The court of first instance held that the plaintiff participated in the Vietnam War from March 23, 1969 to February 5, 1970; the plaintiff was diagnosed as "high-do neutism" at the time of discharge on August 31, 1971; the plaintiff was diagnosed as "high-do neutism" from around 2006 to the symptoms at the time of discharge from Busan Veterans Hospital; however, there are no specific and objective data to recognize that the above wounds occurred due to military service, other than the plaintiff's statement; however, the plaintiff asserted that there was an outbreak or aggravation of the symptoms identical to the illness of this case (the plaintiff asserted that the first head of Seocho who worked as the plaintiff on January 1, 1971, before the plaintiff returned to the Republic of Korea, had no objective data to confirm the fact that the first head of the Korean War was directly attacked as alleged by the plaintiff); and ② there is no evidence to confirm the plaintiff's injury to the plaintiff and the plaintiff's injury to the Vietnam War.