2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On September 10, 1983, the Plaintiff entered the Army and discharged from military service on April 30, 1987.

B. On May 31, 1986, the Plaintiff, who served as a telecommunication assistant at the 20th unit B of the 20th unit, was injured by the “influor infinite, infinite, infinite, and infinite, in order to confirm the short line work.”

C. On June 18, 1997, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished service to the Defendant, and was determined as a soldier or policeman on duty on the part of the Defendant. As a result of the physical examination for classifying a disability rating, the Plaintiff was determined as a person or policeman on duty on the part of the Defendant, and was determined as a disability rating under class 6 (2) 51 (a person with only a single eye), on the ground that it was confirmed that it was in the state of infection, e.g., e., e., e.,

On August 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for a re-trial physical examination with the Defendant on August 20, 2014, and the doctor of Busan Veterans Hospital presented his opinion that the Plaintiff fell under Class 6 grade 1 (1) 1112 (a person under the real name of one eye) of the disability rating on the ground that there is no luminous sense in the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant, following the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, appears to have not lost the luminous sense of Plaintiff’s friendship on December 5, 2014, and notified the Plaintiff of the result of the re-determination physical examination of the re-determination rating that the Plaintiff falls under Grade 6(2) 1113 (0.0

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 3, Gap’s evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and Gap’s evidence Nos. 11 through 17, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s disability rating pertaining to visual disability is as follows: (a) the Defendant determined that “one eye’s correction vision is 0.02 or less, but the Plaintiff’s friendly letter was the real name,” and as to “the person who was the real name of the Plaintiff’s friendly letter,” it should be determined under Grade 6(1)112 as to “the person who was the real name of the snow.”

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

(b) Appendix attached to the relevant legislation;