1. On January 2, 2019, the Defendant’s disposition to make a determination of the grade of the re-determination for a trial against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 4, 1978, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on September 198, 198, on the ground that the Plaintiff was discharged from military service while serving in the Army.

B. On August 12, 1980, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State, and deliberated and decided on the “satise and satitis” as a soldier or policeman wounded on duty, and changed to class 3, class 83 in the first disability rating examination in 1994 after being determined as class 2, class 23, and was determined as class 2, class 4,108 in the second physical examination in 2014.

C. On August 13, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for a re-examination with respect to the Defendant. On January 2, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to determine the Plaintiff’s disability rating as Class 2 and 4108 as well as the previous disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is in the state of complete paralysis as the state of disability has deteriorated and is still in the state of complete paralysis, and has urinary disorder and urine disorder caused by malutic damage, and needs to always support and protect others’ behavior necessary for daily life. Such Plaintiff’s condition is the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished

(2) The disposition of this case is unlawful as it goes against the principle of equality and the principle of self-defense, and is against the principle of self-defense. The disposition of this case is against the principle of equality and the principle of self-defense. Thus, the disposition of this case is against the principle of self-defense. The disposition of this case is against the principle of equality and the principle of self-defense.

B. Relevant statutes are attached thereto.