1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On November 24, 2014, the Plaintiff entered the Navy as a member of the Marine Corps and was discharged from active service on August 22, 2016.

B. On August 29, 2016, the Plaintiff stated that “The Plaintiff was subject to a strong collision with the other party during the batal sports hours,” and applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State. In the 267th Veterans Examination Council of 2016, the Plaintiff deliberated and decided that the “satisfying off the opposite party’s satisfy” constituted a military person and police officer, but on December 6, 2016, the Plaintiff was determined to fall under the criteria for “satisfying off the opposite party’s satisfy” as a result of a new physical examination conducted by the Central Veterans Hospital on December 6, 2016

Accordingly, on January 19, 2017, the defendant notified the plaintiff of his/her eligibility for veteran's compensation (disaster injury).

(1) On February 9, 2017, the Plaintiff presented the opinion of “Class 7 8122” to the above recognized status of the body reexamination conducted by the Central Veterans Hospital on March 9, 2017, with the opinion that “No special frame changes are made in the radiation condition photographs after the operation of the sacrife and the sacrife operation, but the sacrife for the measurement of the scope of the movement was sent to the sacrife of the sacrife. 8122. However, the Veterans Council presented the opinion that the physical examination conducted by the medical specialist of the specialized department for the external surgery of the sacrife and the table of the sacrife at the Veterans Council was limited to at least 1/4 of the physical examination conducted by the medical specialist of the specialized department for the external surgery of the sacrife, but the scope of the movement was subjective and the prosecutor did not have any symptoms in the examination of related data such as images.”

x) On June 30, 2017, the defendant issued a "disposition of this case" to the plaintiff's person eligible for veteran's compensation (the "person eligible for veteran's compensation") to notify the plaintiff of his decision.

(v) The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on July 13, 2017, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission (the Central Administrative Appeals Commission) on February 13, 2018.