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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On September 7, 1998, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on January 6, 2001, while serving in the Navy and being trained on August 21, 1999, due to the occurrence of a pain in the kneee-free hospital, and was hospitalized in the Armed Forces Jinhae Hospital.

B. On February 4, 2005, the Plaintiff applied for the registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State to the Defendant and recognized its requirements, but was determined below the grade standard in a physical examination on July 14, 2005.

Accordingly, on September 11, 2008, the Plaintiff applied for a re-verification physical examination to the Defendant, and on October 6, 2008, registered as a person of distinguished service to the State (military police officer) with the result of the re-verification physical examination on “Class 7 & 807” (as a result of a re-verification physical examination on the re-verification of re-verification of re-verification of re-verifications to the Republic of Korea, and on October 6, 2008, the Plaintiff was determined as “Class 7 and Grade 807” (as a person who has a function disorder in the Do

C. On September 26, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an additional application for recognition of wounds with respect to the Defendant on the grounds that “the sexual intercourse with the outside side” was damaged, but the Defendant, on February 6, 2015, recognized the Plaintiff as a soldier or policeman on the ground that only the “damage to the outside side of the slick frame” was a soldier or policeman on the part of the Plaintiff.

On March 18, 2015, at the Busan Veterans Hospital, the Plaintiff’s physical examination conducted on March 18, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant difference”) on the Plaintiff’s “the certificate of the loss of the pelpelle on the side of the pelle in the left side, the anti-months on the left side, and the damage to the left side of the spelle in the left side” (hereinafter “the instant difference”).

E. On September 9, 2015, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement stated that: (a) on the instant wound, the medical specialist of the relevant specialized department conducted a dub extended surgery that has no relevance to the recognition of wounds in a physical examination; and (b) the relevant images and data are closely examined at the Veterans Examination Committee; and (c) it is difficult to deem that the instant wound was a chronic disability due to the recognition wound, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s instant wound was less than the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to