1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 1, 1952, the Plaintiff entered the Army and discharged the Plaintiff from active service on January 10, 1953.

B. The Plaintiff participated in the Korean War on October 1952, and sustained injuries from both snow and ear, as a result of a direct arrest and an attack by the Middle Air Force, and on March 24, 2004, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that he met the requirements for a soldier or policeman killed or wounded in action at the Veterans Examination Council on March 24, 2004. The Plaintiff was judged to have failed to meet the grade criteria in all physical examinations conducted on May 28, 2004 for the determination of disability rating, and re-examination on July 28, 2004, and re-verification on September 27, 2006 and October 29, 208.

C. Since then, on January 25, 2011, the Plaintiff was recognized as having been wounded and wounded in action at the Patriots and Veterans Examination Council on January 25, 201, on the ground that “the injury (excluding the influorites and reflectivity)” was the subject of an application. However, on March 29, 2011, the Plaintiff was judged as “the level below the standards” in a physical examination for re-verification and filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed.

On May 10, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-verification on the grounds that both snow and scarcity were injured due to the direct scarcity and hydro-scarb attack, and on May 10, 2016, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement re-examineed the requirements for the soldier or policeman wounded in action. As a result, the “nive injury (excluding both a white and yellow scarcity)” recognized the relevant wounds as the requirements for the soldier or policeman wounded in action, but the other applicant’s “nive injury”, which is the other applicant’s objection, did not meet the requirements for the soldier or policeman wounded in action on the ground that the specific and objective records that he or she was injured in combat or in the performance of his duties in addition to the Plaintiff’s statement, were not verified, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the results of the re-verification review following the application for re

E. The Plaintiff’s injury is the case’s injury, excluding both white and yellow diversity of the injury of the draft, for which the requirements for compensation for injury was recognized.