A. From January 13, 1982, the Plaintiff was in office as a local public official for the strengthened Military Service and was discharged from military service on March 12, 1983 and on September 12, 1985. During military service, the Plaintiff transferred the name of the Defendant and the office in distress due to the noise from the launch of public firearms, such as personal firearms and engine guns. From May 2009, the symptoms of the ear to the right-hand ear have deteriorated, and the cause of the transfer of name and kis on the left-hand ear, and the Plaintiff suffered pain. However, on November 12, 2009, the Plaintiff applied for the registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on June 12, 2009.

B. On November 24, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration of persons of distinguished service to the State by adding evidential data, such as the letter of good faith, but was returned on January 7, 2010, and immediately filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on July 20, 2010 on the ground that there was no objective evidentiary data such as medical records, etc. at the time of military service.

C. On January 25, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the application basis of “the two sides (i.e., name and influence; hereinafter referred to as “the instant wound”), the right-hand fingers, and the right-hand fingers.” On April 21, 2017, the Plaintiff received a disposition from the Defendant on April 21, 2017, only the instant different parts among the non-specific decisions of persons of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

Accordingly, on July 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of only the difference in the instant non-relevant disposition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made by the Plaintiff, immediately after shooting training on May 1983, 1983, at least 5 parking guns and public-use firearms training conducted for the first time after the shooting training, and was in a full-scale vision from the shooting training conducted by the latter half of August 1983.