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

A. On March 8, 2011, the Plaintiff entered the Army and discharged the Army from military service on December 7, 2012.

B. After discharge, on October 17, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant for distinguished service to the State on the ground that the Plaintiff sustained injury, such as voltage damage, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., complete e., pressure damage, e.g., e., e., complete e.g., damage to the left-hand e.g., e., damage to e., e., e., e., e

C. On July 22, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the Plaintiff was determined as a person subject to physical examination, who satisfies the requirements of Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc.”) regarding “the entire parts of the part of the earth and the part of the earth and the part of the river (e.g., ex officio)” (hereinafter “the part of the case”).

The Plaintiff received a new physical examination at the Central Veterans Hospital on August 27, 2013, and thereafter the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement on October 21, 2013, the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc.”) on the ground that the Plaintiff was subject to the restriction on employment in the job due

3. A disability rating table No. 7 No. 4115 of grade 7 was judged to fall under the category of persons subject to the restriction on their employment latitude due to the negoical disorder of the neological disorder (persons with serious neutronological disorder above the national part).

E. Accordingly, on November 7, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the determination of disability ratings as above.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). . [Grounds for recognition] . 【No dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 6 (which include each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Although the difference between the Plaintiff’s assertion and the instant case is recognized as 6th class 2, the Defendant.