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

A. At the time of the 625 War, the Plaintiff participated in the army from February 1, 1951 to July 1, 1953 under the brigade B, which was located in the 8240 military unit, and was transferred to the Army on February 22, 1954, but was discharged from the army under the age of April 18, 1954.

B. On August 4, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State with each other, claiming that the Defendant was suffering from high-frequency in the 625 War on both sides by applying for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State. However, on December 24, 2009, the Defendant rendered a decision non-conforming to the requirements of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that there was no evidence to determine the degree of Cheongang damage during the combat performance.

C. On November 10, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff had no objective data to recognize that the Plaintiff sustained wounds during the performance of combat action, the Plaintiff rendered a decision that constitutes a non-conformity of the requirements for a person who rendered distinguished services to the State.

On June 15, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State, alleging that the Defendant was dissatisfyed with shot explosion and guns during battles, and that the satisfy was caused to both ear, thereby resulting in the occurrence of satisfying nephism (hereinafter referred to as the “instant wounds”).

E. On December 11, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition that the Plaintiff’s wound does not meet all the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s wound was directly related to national security, etc., and that it cannot be recognized that the Plaintiff’s wound was caused by the performance of duties or education and training other than that, and that it does not meet the requirements

F. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on May 10, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The instant disposition is made.