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

A. On May 1, 1978, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service as a staff member of the Navy and was discharged from military service.

On January 31, 1983, discharged from military service.

B. In 2005, the Plaintiff was deemed as a soldier or policeman on the part of the Defendant on the part of the following: “The escape certificate of conical signboards between the 4-5 and the 5th century - the 1,000, the 4-5 vertebrate of the vertebrate, the ebrate No. 4-5 vertebrate, the climatic ebrate No. 3-4, 5-6-7, the escape certificate of conical signboards escape No. 4-5, the cliblosis of the upper left, and the blood fluor above the upper left part of the upper part of the upper part of the deceased, but was judged to fall short of the disability rating standards on January 24

C. In around 2007, the Plaintiff was additionally recognized as an additional prize for the Defendant’s “satisfying position after the satisfying of the anti-months on the left side of the satch in the satch, and after the satisfying of the fourth sector,” but was determined as falling short of the disability rating standard on January 8, 2008.

On December 11, 2009, the Plaintiff received 4-5 conical and fixed alcoholic beverages from the Central Veterans Hospital on the conical and re-verification of the signboards. On June 30, 2010, on the basis of the results of the re-verification physical examination, the post-verification Nos. 7 grade 802 and other wounds fall short of the disability rating standards and was determined as Class 7 of the final disability rating.

E. On June 5, 2013, the Plaintiff was judged to be Grade 7 of the disability rating in the same manner as that of the previous, because the results of the re-examination conducted on June 5, 2013 showed that the parts in need of re-examination were not lower than Grade 7.

F. On June 6, 2014, the Plaintiff received a large galutism from the Central Veterans Hospital, and applied for a re-examination to the Defendant on July 28, 2014. On February 2, 2015, the Defendant applied for a re-examination to the Defendant on July 28, 2015, as recognized by the Plaintiff, for a re-examination. On February 2, 2015, the Defendant fell short of the standards for the final re-examination of the galute of the 4-5 galutism and the 5 galute escape certificate between the 4-5 vertecule, the vertebregrosis of the verteemblin, No. 3-4, 5-6-7, and the 4-5 galute-5 galutine of the balutite, which fell short of the standards for the injury rating of the galute.