1. Of the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part regarding chronic instability of right satisfaction shall be revoked.

2...

1. The scope of the judgment of this court in this case did not explicitly apply for the registration of persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State and the plaintiff applied for the registration of persons eligible for veteran's compensation, regarding "scarcity chronic instability" (hereinafter "the instant wounds") and "scarcity infection" through the instant lawsuit, but pursuant to Article 4 (2) of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation (hereinafter "the Veteran's Compensation Act"), the applicant for registration is deemed to have made an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State under the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter "the Act") on the date he/she made the application for registration.

On October 25, 2013, the Defendant sought revocation of each non-specific decision made on October 25, 2013. The court of first instance dismissed all of the claims for revocation of the non-specific decision made on a person of distinguished service to the State, and the claims for revocation of the non-specific decision made on a person of distinguished service to the State in relation to the injury in this case, and accepted only the claims for revocation of the non-specific decision made on a person of distinguished service to the State in relation to the right-hand tolerance.

Accordingly, the Defendant did not appeal against the part against the Defendant (the part against which the Defendant did not appeal against the revocation of the relevant decision made by a person eligible for veteran’s compensation in relation to the instant wounds). The Plaintiff did not appeal against the part against the Plaintiff regarding the pertinent decision made by a person who rendered distinguished service to the State on the “defensive salt of a person who rendered distinguished service to the State” and the revocation of the relevant decision made by a person ineligible for veteran’s compensation. Accordingly, the scope of the instant judgment is limited to the part regarding the claim for revocation of the relevant decision

2. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence 1 to 3 and evidence 1 to 2 and 7, each number is included: