1. On April 2, 2013, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State according to the lower disability rating.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 18, 2007, the Plaintiff received re-statements due to the fact-finding, the left-hand satise of the Plaintiff.

B. On December 26, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision on the recognition of the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State for the “Stomoman (Stomoman)” (hereinafter “instant wounds”), thereby undergoing a physical examination for the classification of disability ratings.

C. On January 31, 2013, the Plaintiff was determined to fall short of the grading standard on the ground of “X” in a new physical examination, and filed an application for a physical examination for reexamination on March 25, 2013. However, the Plaintiff was determined to fall short of the grading standard on the ground of insignificant functional disorder.

On April 2, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the determination of the physical examination for reexamination.

[The Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act”)]

) The disposition of refusal to register persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State following a notice under Article 6-3(3) (hereinafter “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, the entry of Gap 1, 3, Eul 1, 3 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s disability rating due to the Plaintiff’s instant wound constitutes class 6, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. According to the result of the fact-finding inquiry with respect to Eul University Hospital Head of this court, according to the fact-finding method, at the time of physical appraisal on August 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff’s physical area was measured from 5 to 80 degrees 75 degrees (i.e., 80 degrees - 5 degrees). Accordingly, according to Article 14, attached Table 3, Article 8-2, attached Table 3, and attached Table 8-3, and attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the Plaintiff constitutes “a person whose physical area was restricted by 1/2 or more of the physical area of 5 degrees 5 degrees -5 degrees - 5 degrees).”