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

A. On March 1, 1981, the Plaintiff entered the Air Force and worked as the chief of the Department of Education in the Department of the B B BM Flight Education. On November 16:30, 1986, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service by subrogation on March 31, 1990, under the diagnosis of “the separation unit of the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of the field of the sports activities where he was faced with a shoulder at the ground while carrying out dynamics and the field of the field of the sports activities.

B. On February 7, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person eligible for veteran’s compensation with the Defendant. On June 18, 2018, the Defendant, following deliberation by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, determined that “the Plaintiff constitutes a person eligible for veteran’s compensation who is entitled to the recognition of “the operation name that the Plaintiff received as to the separation of the back-to-hand check frame and the off-to-faceized aggregate (the name of the operation that the Plaintiff received for the separation of the left-hand check frame and the off-to-door aggregate; hereinafter referred to as the “the instant difference”).”

C. On July 26, 2018, the Plaintiff received a new physical examination for disability rating at the Central Veterans Hospital. On October 10, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision that the Plaintiff was not eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s physical examination conducted at the Central Veterans Hospital about the instant wounds recognized as eligible for veteran’s compensation and deliberated by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement that the degree of physical sacrifice was determined to be below the criteria for disability rating.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff has a light-level functional disorder on the left-hand shoulder, and therefore, at least Grade 7, 7124 of the disability rating (one part of the three sections of one arms) applies to the plaintiff, and it is medically recognized that the difference cannot be fixed within six months since he/she had a light-level functional disorder on the left-hand shoulder after he/she undergone an operation in 1986.