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

A. On January 4, 1996, the Plaintiff entered the Army as a soldier, and served at the Class 9 Military Branch Guard at the Class 9 Military Branch Guard, and was discharged from military service on September 29, 1997.

B. On July 1, 1999, the Plaintiff: (a) applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the Defendant; and (b) deemed that “protruding escape certificate L4-5” was caused or aggravated during military service according to the resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement on October 22, 1999; and (c) accordingly, (d) was determined to meet the requirements for soldier or policeman on duty; (b) however, (c)

C. On August 13, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State on the basis of the difference in the application for “Plag escape certificate L4-5 and multiple confluence certificate”. The Defendant rendered a disposition to the effect that, although the difference in application does not directly related to the military duty or education and training, it is judged that the difference in the military did not meet the requirements for soldier or policeman on duty, the difference in the “Plag escape certificate L4-5” was considerably worse during the military service, and that it was confirmed that the operation was performed after the lapse of two years from active service and the operation was performed again after the lapse of six years from the surgery, and as a result, it was determined as “Plaf 6-2(2)6107” and registered as a person eligible for veteran

On July 19, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant on the ground that “protruding escape certificate L4-5” (hereinafter “instant wounds”) was different from the application, but the Defendant rendered a disposition on October 7, 2013 on the ground that the instant wounds did not meet the requirements for military personnel and police officers, etc., and that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”) and met the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State.

E. On November 25, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but filed an administrative appeal.