1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

In September 27, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition that constituted the requirement of a person who rendered distinguished services to the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5 (including the branch numbers if it is not indicated specially; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole pleadings, and there is no counter-proof.

On June 22, 2015, the Plaintiff entered the Air Force, and was subject to basic military training from June 29, 2015 to July 3, 2015, and received special skills training at a special aircraft school on August 2, 2015, and was subject to special skills training at a special aircraft school on August 2, 2015, on August 25, 2015, and was discharged from service on June 21, 2017.

B. On July 12, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that “Around June 30, 2015, at the basic military training team applied for the registration of a person of distinguished service to the State, to the Defendant, for the following reasons: “Around June 30, 2015, he/she experienced knee in the right knee in the course of the training and lives after being given a two-time degree course of the training, which led to the aggravation of pain and physical therapy at the National Armed Forces Daegu Hospital, due to the aggravation of pain after being placed in the training.”

(Evidence 3, 5). (c)

On September 27, 2017, the Defendant rendered the Plaintiff’s application on September 27, 2017, the instant disposition that “The Plaintiff, as a person serving mandatory service, determined that the instant injury was caused or aggravated due to considerable causal link with the performance of military duties, constitutes the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation, but it is difficult to see that the instant injury was incurred in the course of performing duties or education and training directly related to the national defense, security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people, and thus does not constitute the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State (Article A(4); hereinafter “the part pertaining to the non-conformity of the requirements for a person serving distinguished service to the Plaintiff”).”

The statutes related to the disposition of this case are as stated in the attached Form 2.

2. The plaintiff's assertion.