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

A. On April 5, 2011, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on January 4, 2013.

B. On February 4, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for the registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff occurred due to the prone training twice during the military service and the long-range-distance driving group, namely, “prone kneee kneume mathum, reciting anti-fladne, the left-hand smoke smoke, and the external anti-fluoral flusium.” However, the Defendant rendered a decision on the above wounds as not constituting the requirements

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the above disposition with the Daegu District Court, and was sentenced to partial winning judgment that “Iekne knee mae-mae-mae-mae-mae-mae-mae-mae-mae-mae-maak, the left-hand smoke (hereinafter “the instant wounds”) constituted the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State. After the judgment became final and conclusive, on November 3, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision that the instant wounds against the Plaintiff constituted the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State.”

C. On January 27, 2016, the Plaintiff received a physical examination to determine the degree of injury with respect to the instant injury at the Daegu Veterans Hospital. On April 18, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision to grant distinguished service to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant physical examination result was determined to fall short of the standard of classification as a result of the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement on April 18, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is confirmed to be damaged in light of the general view as it is necessary to provide treatment, such as eromatic surgery, due to the lack of symptoms despite continuous treatment after discharge from active service. As such, the physical area of the Plaintiff’s assertion is limited to at least 1/4 of the field of eromatic surgery, or changes in the number of external wounds caused by eromatic damage, notwithstanding appropriate treatment.