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

A. On October 27, 1983, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service with his major on February 15, 1986.

B. On July 29, 1985, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant on October 30, 2014 for the registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that he/she sustained injuries by facing the left eye on the small stone that had been on the top of the place where he/she had been on duty in the coast guard near the 22th century in the Army, around 6:00 p.m. on July 29, 1985. On April 15, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that he/she recognized the Plaintiff as a person who rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “the instant difference”).

C. On May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff conducted a new physical examination for the above recognized family points at the Central Veterans Hospital. However, it was determined below the grade criteria, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision on the non-competent status of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State (or the soldier on duty) on July 13, 2015.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an objection to the determination of a new physical examination on August 19, 2015, and filed an application for a physical examination on August 19, 2015. On October 28, 2015, the National Veterans Hospital held that the results of physical examination conducted by the Central Veterans Hospital fall short of the same grade criteria, and the Defendant again notified the Plaintiff of the determination on non-applicable persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State (military police) on December 21, 2

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists on the ground of recognition, Gap 1 through Gap 3, Eul 3 through Eul 7, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff suffered difficulties in daily life due to excessive infiltration in a multi-friendly unit after discharge from active service, which led to recovery to a certain degree of vision after an artificial insemination transplant surgery, but there is a significant and long range of vision in both visual vehicles. Thus, the degree of disability caused by the plaintiff's wound in this case is at least hereinafter "the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State" (hereinafter referred to as "the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State").