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

A. On February 5, 199, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on February 28, 2001.

B. On July 10, 2001, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant, asserting that “A person who rendered distinguished services to the State sustained knee injury (hereinafter “instant injury”) around June 1999 during military service,” but was determined below the grading standard as a result of the new physical examination on November 21, 2001 and the physical examination on July 22, 2002.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff applied for a physical examination for re-verification on March 19, 2009, and as a result, the Plaintiff was registered as a person of distinguished service to the State on May 19, 2009, subject to the judgment of "Class 7 grade 807" due to the functional disorder of the right snife Do.

On October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for a re-examination. As a result, the Plaintiff was determined as “Class 7 8122 of the disability rating corresponding to the above grade.”

On the other hand, on the other hand, on January 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for a re-examination for re-determination with the Defendant on December 18, 2013 due to the aggravation of the instant wounds, claiming that he/she received a re-examination for re-determination on the grounds that he/she was subject to a re-examination for re-determination. On June 23, 2014, the Plaintiff was determined to fall short of the grading criteria (hereinafter “the result of the instant physical examination”). On July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff was determined to be “a person who does not fall under the disability rating” as a result of the deliberation by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement which was held on July

Accordingly, on August 6, 2014, the defendant's disposition of "the disposition of this case" is "the disposition of this case against the plaintiff which rendered distinguished service to the person who has rendered distinguished service to the State".

E) On September 4, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on September 4, 2014, but the said appeal was dismissed on November 11, 2014. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute a dispute, A’s evidence 1 through 4, and Eul’s evidence 1 through 3 (which include a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the defendant of this case.