1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

The scope of the judgment of this court did not appeal against the revocation of the non-applicable decision of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State who lost the first instance court, and the revocation of the non-applicable decision of a person eligible for veteran's compensation with respect to the escape certificate of a wooden signboard escape certificate. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff appealed against the revocation of the non-applicable decision of the person eligible for veteran's compensation with respect to the escape certificate of a lu

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the defendant's appeal.

Details of the disposition

On September 21, 1995, the Plaintiff entered the Army 71 Team 27 solidarity on September 21, 1995, and served as a D unit driver, and was discharged from military service on June 7, 1996.

On August 8, 2014, the Plaintiff: “Around February 71, 1996, the 71st group of 27th group of building with a view to getting off a bridge while carrying out sanitary and snow removal operations on the rooftop of a building with a view to getting off the bridge and getting out of the roof of the 1st group of building with a view to getting off the bridge and getting injured.”

(2) On October 20, 2014, the Board of Patriots and Veterans (hereinafter “instant accident”) deliberated and decided on October 20, 2014 on the Plaintiff’s application for re-registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and the requirements for soldiers and police officers. On December 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for re-registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State. Accordingly, on March 11, 2016, the Defendant filed an application with the Defendant for re-registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that “the instant case No. 1 and 2 were directly involved in the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the national defense and security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people, and the rapid aggravation of the development or progress of the State defense and security or the protection of the people’s lives and property has not been caused rapidly or rapidly beyond the speed of natural progress.