All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff was appointed as a fire-fighting official on May 19, 1989 and retired on June 30, 2008.

B. On November 30, 2017, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant the difference in the nuclear escape certificate between 2-3, 3-4, and 4-5 for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant difference”), and applied for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State.

On December 27, 200, when the plaintiff was on duty in B Fire Station, the plaintiff felled during the operation test of the fire-fighting vehicle, and turned out the king chrons, and on March 12, 2005, the hurris were found to have been recognized as a public official on duty on May 11, 2006, and on December 5, 2007, the difference in this case was determined as Grade 6-2 as a result of the reclassification physical examination conducted at the Seoul Veterans Hospital and recognized as a public official on duty.

Since then, the Plaintiff applied for the change of the applicable classification as a soldier or policeman wounded on duty, but not recognized. On January 27, 2010, the Plaintiff was subject to review on the ground of audit by the Board of Audit and Inspection, and was deprived of the Plaintiff’s qualification as a public official on duty on August 3, 2010 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s wound was not a difference in official duty.

However, since the plaintiff's wound is certain due to fire extinguishment and performance of rescue and first-aid services, it was caused to apply for registration of persons of distinguished services to the State.

C. On April 26, 2018, the Defendant decided that the instant wound does not meet the requirements of injury (or disease) incurred during the performance of official duties, and issued a disposition that does not meet the requirements of Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State and Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff was dissatisfyed while inspecting a fire-fighting vehicle on December 17, 200, and is satched.