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

The plaintiff was admitted to the Army on October 19, 1993, but from around July 15, 1994, from around 1994, the plaintiff was found to have difficulty in respiratory and chest pain in training, and as a result of the diagnosis, he was discharged from military service on September 12, 1994.

On December 14, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the basis of the application for a cage cage cage (hereinafter “the instant wounds”) around 2006. However, on December 14, 2006, the Board of Patriots and Veterans decided to meet the requirements for a soldier or policeman wounded on duty, but the application for registration was dismissed.

On August 25, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant on the basis of the instant wound. On December 26, 2017, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement recognized that the instant wound was suffered in the course of performing duties not directly related to the national defense and security or the protection of people’s lives and property, and thus, it was determined that the injury was not a soldier or policeman on duty as prescribed by the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”), but it constitutes the requirements for a soldier or policeman under the Act on Support

However, according to the above resolution, the result of the physical examination for re-verification of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant physical examination”) conducted on January 31, 2018 (hereinafter “instant physical examination”) was determined to fall short of the grading standards, and the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement also made the same resolution on March 12, 2018.

Accordingly, on March 27, 2018, the Defendant rendered a “in-depth physical examination results” guidance to the effect that the Defendant was determined as a non-eligible person subject to the Patriots and Veterans Compensation Act as it judged the Plaintiff to fall short of the grade criteria.

(hereinafter referred to as the “disposition of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap’s 1 to 3 evidence, Eul’s 1 to 7 evidence (including paper numbers), and the purport of the entire pleading is legitimate. The plaintiff’s assertion is legitimate.