1. On December 7, 201, the Defendant rendered notification to the Plaintiff on December 7, 2011 as a result of deliberation on the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 21, 2006, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on August 8, 2008 by entering the Gun and serving in the first rank of the Navy, and discharged from military service on August 8, 2008.

B. On April 24, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for the registration of a person of distinguished service with the State, asserting that the Plaintiff suffered from Cheongsung damage and the left-hand noise disorder in the performance of official duties in the military, but the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement deliberated and decided on July 27, 2009 that the above wound was not recognized as a wound related to official duties.

C. On July 15, 2011, the Plaintiff submitted additional data to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State by asserting that he/she suffered 'defluence and noise disorder' in the military performance.

On December 7, 2011, the Defendant issued a notice of the result of deliberation on the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) to the effect that the Defendant’s “ Noise Distress” constituted the “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State” (amended by Act No. 11041, Sept. 15, 201; hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc.”) under Article 73-2(1) of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, on the ground that there was no significant impediment to the quality of the police and daily life in the ancient calendar due to the lack of a high level of Cheongneopic view from the Cheongneic History Inspection.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he was killed in the line of duty after receiving an order from a school officer to cut his ear while undergoing a shooting training on September 2006, and received a ear while he was under the instruction to cut his ear and received the ear, and then the Plaintiff suffered a wound of “the name of the Cheong-gu and the left-hand.”

Therefore, the plaintiff suffered a wound without his own negligence, and it is different from this.