1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The first instance court dismissed the claim for the revocation of the disposition rejecting a person who rendered distinguished services to the State, and accepted the preliminary claim for the revocation of a person eligible for veteran's compensation.

Therefore, since only the plaintiff appealed on the primary claim against the plaintiff, the party member shall be determined only to the legitimacy of the claim for revocation of the refusal of the disposition against the person who rendered distinguished services to the State.

2. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 26, 199, the Plaintiff entered the Gun and served in the 11st Military Soldiers from March 11, 1999 to the 155 Military Soldiers, and was discharged from military service on March 25, 2001.

B. On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on the basis of the Defendant’s application for “Slives No. Madle No. Madle No. Madle

C. On January 23, 2014, following the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered a decision that “the Plaintiff’s “the instant disposition” under the Act on the Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation”) does not constitute the requirements for soldiers and police officers under the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation”), on the ground that it is not recognized to have been caused during the performance of duties or education and training directly related to national security, etc., and thus does not constitute the requirements for soldiers and police officers under the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”).

On February 4, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant, but the Defendant, on April 28, 2014, notified the Plaintiff that the instant disposition should be maintained.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 11, Eul evidence No. 1-2, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion for admission to the military.