2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s decision on November 5, 2014 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On September 24, 1993, the Plaintiff entered the Army and discharged the Plaintiff from active service on November 30, 1995.

B. On March 16, 1995, while serving in the military, the Plaintiff was walking the other party's altitude while walking in the process of Taekwondo team examination. Accordingly, the Plaintiff received a method of elimination of the altitude on the right side due to a high spating from the right side (hereinafter referred to as "first difference").

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on March 24, 2010, and the Defendant was registered as a person of distinguished service to the State on June 29, 2010, by recognizing the relationship between the first and the first wounds on June 29, 2010 and granting judgment No. 703 in a physical examination for disability rating classification on July 27, 2010.

D. After that, on August 9, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for confirmation of additional major items with the Defendant to recognize the injury or diagnosis and treatment of the injury to the refund at the time of the first injury treatment on March 14, 2011, the Defendant did not verify the records of injury, diagnosis and treatment of the injury to the refund at the time of the first injury, and the Plaintiff’s inspection of the Busan University Hospital found Macro(GII), which led to the discovery of the Plaintiff as a result of the examination of the Busan University Hospital’s hospital’s failure to recognize additional measures on the ground that the proximate causal link between the second injury and the military duties is not recognized.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation against the head of the Changwon Veterans Organization seeking the revocation of the above additional disposition of merit support (the Changwon District Court 201Guhap1632), and won the case at the first instance trial. The Defendant revoked the above additional disposition of merit support according to the recommendation of the adjudication division in accordance with the mediation of the adjudication division in the appellate trial (the Busan High Court 2013Nu16555), which was proceeding by the Defendant’s appeal, and issued a disposition to recognize the Plaintiff as a person falling under Article 4(1)6 of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “the second and second differences”).

F. Meanwhile, as a result of the physical examination on the instant wounds on November 5, 2014, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff constitutes “a person with a high level of disability in the function of reproductive organs” on the ground that the Plaintiff was found to have recovered from the right-hand high refund and was judged to be an influence due to the left-hand situation, and notified the Plaintiff of the result of the determination (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff has recovered from the right side due to the first wound and caused a disability that has lost the function of reproductive origin on the left side due to the second wound, and the degree of the injury in this case constitutes "a person who completely lost reproductive origin of class 5,202 prescribed in [Attachment 3] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25720, Nov. 11, 2014; Presidential Decree No. hereinafter referred to as "Enforcement Decree of the Act").

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Major evidential materials;

1) The result of the court of first instance commissioning the head of Busan University Hospital and the fact-finding inquiry result

- The plaintiff is currently infinite and has lost reproductive functions in the sense that it is possible to be pregnant and it is impossible to be natural pregnant, if it is viewed that the plaintiff is currently infinite and attempted to revise the body.

- The plaintiff can be deemed to have lost its function in terms of the formation of sperm among the functions of high exchange, provided that the creation of male mon shows normal range.

- The fixed examination is highly likely to be abnormal to the assessment officer of the plaintiff.

- There have been 9 points in the Jhnsen's Score classification, and when a person made in the aftermath has a disability from being discharged to the outside, such points will be given to him, and natural pregnancy is impossible, but it is possible to be pregnant through artificial insemination. The procedure for artificial insemination shall undergo medical processes, such as inducement of disturbance and ovum extraction, and even if pregnancy is possible, it shall not be considered that it maintains the function of the complete high recovery in consideration of the possibility of being pregnant. Therefore, I think that the status of the plaintiff can be interpreted as "the loss of the function of the aftermath".

2) Eul evidence No. 4 (As a result of the examination of medical records by the plaintiff of a branch bank of Seoul National University Hospital)

-The plaintiff's production of sperm in high exchange is almost close to the normal situation, and is an unafford person who has no fixed person in the situation. In this case, the articles of incorporation may be closed on the ground of unafford person's proof which may be doubtful. The closure of the articles of incorporation may take place in any part from the beginning of the unafford person to the assessment officer in the previous

- 9 points for Jhnsen s scre : it appears to be close to almost normal conditions with the decreased sperm production compared to normal conditions. The plaintiff in high exchange is close to almost normal conditions, and the production of sperm is a non-self-drawer who does not have a good mind in the amount of circumstances.

D. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, based on the language and text of the relevant statutes and the overall structure of the pleading, the degree of the injury of the Plaintiff’s instant case does not mean that “one-way high refund has been lost and the other high refund function has been lost,” but it is deemed that “it is impossible to conduct assessment due to damage to the articles of incorporation,” and thus falls under class 6(1)5203 prescribed in the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

① According to the above evidence, the Plaintiff’s right-hand scrap is recovered and lost, and the left-hand scrap is rarely produced sperm but does not discharge sperm due to damage, etc. to the assessment officer. On the other hand, natural pregnancy is impossible and artificial pregnancy by artificial insemination is possible in such cases.

② The Enforcement Decree of the Act provides for "a person who has lost completely reproductive technology" as Class V 5,202. The detailed criteria are prescribed in [Attachment Table 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Ordinance No. 1103, Nov. 19, 2014; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule of the Act"). The Enforcement Rule of the Act provides for "a person who has lost fully and continuously his/her reproductive function", "a person who has lost fully and continuously his/her reproductive function," "a person who has lost his/her reproductive function, has lost his/her reproductive function, or has lost the other reproductive function and has lost the other reproductive function." Thus, in order to fall under the loss of reproductive function, it shall be interpreted that only the fact that part of the reproductive function has been lost is insufficient, and where the intrinsic function of reproductive function has been lost to the extent that it itself is lost.

③ In the case of the Plaintiff, the left-hand turn-hand turn-off lost the function of transmitting sperm due to damage to the assessment officers, etc. However, considering that the Plaintiff’s sperm production function is close to almost normal conditions and it is possible to artificial pregnancy due to artificial insemination as long as the production function of sperm is almost normal, the production function of sperm can be deemed to be the principal function of high exchange, and as long as the Plaintiff’s status of high exchange is maintained the principal function of high exchange, it cannot be deemed to have completely lost its function to the extent that the Plaintiff’s left-hand turn-hand turn-over is lost.

④ Under the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the term “person who has a defect in the height of the function of the reproductive machine” is stipulated in Grade 6(1) and 5203, and the Enforcement Rule of the Act provides that “any person who is unable to conduct assessment due to the impairment of the articles of association” as a basis for its specification. Thus, in order to fall under Grade 5 of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the above Enforcement Rule and the Enforcement Rule should be deemed to fall under a higher difference than that of “a person who is unable to conduct assessment due to the impairment of the articles of association as stipulated in Grade 6.”

⑤ However, it is clear in the language that the degree of the difference between the Plaintiff’s instant case constitutes a person who has an obstacle to the function of reproductive organs (Grade 6(1) and 5203) as stipulated in the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and that the degree of the difference constitutes “a person who is unable to conduct assessment due to the impairment of the articles of incorporation under [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, which provides specific criteria therefor.

④ Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s instant difference falls under “a person who has a high level of disorder in the function of reproductive technology” under class 6(1)5203 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, but does not fall under “a person who has fully lost reproductive technology” under class 5(4202) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff'

Judges Clinical Citizens

Judge Lee Jin-young

A person shall be appointed.