1. On February 10, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-existence of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State and a person eligible for veteran’s compensation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 1, 1988, the Plaintiff entered the Army and received training outside the military unit on December 1, 1988, and was diagnosed as a sacratal and pharmacologic, etc. at a military hospital, and eventually discharged from military service on May 20, 1989.

B. On June 20, 2007, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation on the basis of the Defendant’s injury in applying for “uncomford and fluent sexual intercourse”, which was subsequent to the Japanese War, but the Defendant decided to exclude the application of the law that the Defendant cannot be subject to the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State on the ground that the judgment became final and conclusive on August 20, 2010 on the ground that the Plaintiff was sentenced to punishment for murder, etc. on July 24, 1992.

C. On August 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation with the same content. Even if the previous prizes were recognized as his major, the Plaintiff was subject to deliberation and resolution by the Merit Reward Judgment Committee in accordance with the principle that the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State and the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation should be applied, and accordingly, on February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff was issued a disposition to deny the registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On March 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection, following deliberation and resolution by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, and received a decision on whether a person was eligible for veteran’s compensation on June 11, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have been injured in performing official duties as before and after the Defendant was not injured.

Then, the plaintiff is dissatisfied with the disposition of this case.