1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, while serving in the military in around 1988, was diagnosed as the “nuclear escape certificate No. 4-5 of the도요” (hereinafter “instant accident”), and thereafter registered as Grade V of the person who rendered distinguished services to the State on December 7, 2006.

B. On February 20, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-determination of a disability rating with the Defendant. On September 24, 2013, the Plaintiff received a physical examination for re-determination of a disability rating with the Busan Veterans Hospital.

Based on the results of the above physical examination conducted on November 13, 2013 by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant deemed the Plaintiff to fall under class 5 of disability rating 6103 in accordance with the classification of disability ratings, and notified the Plaintiff on November 15, 2013 that there was no change in disability ratings as a result of the trial conducted pursuant to Article 6-3 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act”).

C. Since then, the Plaintiff again filed an application for re-determination of a disability rating with the Defendant, and received a physical examination at the Busan Veterans Hospital on June 7, 2016 for re-determination of a disability rating.

The result of the deliberation by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement on March 15, 2017, based on the results of the above physical examination, deemed that the Defendant, like previous, falls under class 5 and class 6103 of the disability rating classification table, and notified the Plaintiff on March 22, 2017, that there was no change in the disability rating in the re-examination result conducted pursuant to Article 6-3 of the Act

(hereinafter "Disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 14 through 16, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion shows at least 1/2 of the scope of the ordinary movement in the state where the 3-4-5 Haak and 1 Yacheon are in transit through the future. Thus, the plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion shows at least 1/2 of the ordinary movement scope in the future and the chest-gu Yawa in the state where the 3-4-5 Yacheon P