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

A. On September 2, 2008, the Plaintiff entered the Army and sustained an injury in the course of shooting training during the military service (hereinafter “the instant wound”) from the Defendant’s military service on September 9, 2009, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on September 2, 2009.

B. On November 11, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of the instant wounds with respect to the person who rendered distinguished services to the State, and received notification from the Defendant as a person of distinguished services to the State.

C. On April 6, 2010, the Plaintiff received a new physical examination to verify the degree of injury of the instant wound, but notified the Defendant of the result of a separate physical examination of injury rating that the Plaintiff fell short of the rating standards.

After that, on December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-verification physical examination with the Defendant on December 23, 2015. The doctor of Busan Veterans Hospital presented his opinion that the Plaintiff constitutes Grade 6-2 and 8121 of the disability rating (a person who has a functional disorder in the middle in one part among the three sections of one bridge) on the ground that there was a dynamic and at least 1/2 of the physical restriction after the operation of the right slot line four times. However, on April 7, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the results of the physical examination classification of the disability rating of Grade 7 and Grade 8122 (a person who has a functional disorder in one section among the three sections of one bridge) on the ground that there was no opinion of re-verification in the immediately preceding new examination, and there was no proof of an excessive instability in the new examination, but there was no trust in the scope of movement, and it constitutes a physical examination of Grade 7 and Grade 81222 (a person who has a physical disability rating of one road).

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(i) [The facts without dispute over the basis for recognition, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the degree of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant wound is classified in [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State.