1. On July 25, 2018, the Defendant’s disposition of non-conformity of the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a police officer on October 13, 1980, and was retired on June 30, 2014.

B. On January 16, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) participated in shooting training from April 29, 2013 to October 30, 2013; and (b) applied for registration of the instant person of distinguished service to the State and the instant person of distinguished service to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant person of distinguished service to the State”) on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff: (b) was exposed to a shooting trainee on the right side of the net side used for the purpose of cutting down the hedging to the lower end while the Plaintiff participated in shooting training and was prepared for shooting on the shooting line; (c) was exposed to the total amount to wear; (d) the Plaintiff was exposed to the crypt and cryptic symptoms; (d) the Plaintiff was unable to recover from the police hospital while he was considered to have been living; and (d) was determined as having been subject to examination and treatment and prescription by visiting the police hospital; and (d) was determined as having been at Grade 4 under both sidesal pathnosis and this disability.

C. On July 25, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the determination that the Plaintiff was ineligible for distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “instant first disposition”) and the determination that the Plaintiff was ineligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant second disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant difference occurred while conducting shooting training in the underground shooting range of the Yongsan Police Station from September 20, 200 to September 21, 2012, or during the 73th regular shooting training in the 73th regular shooting range of the Yongsan Police Station located in the Hanam-si from September 2012, 2012, while continuing shooting training, and the difference in the instant case becomes worse, the Plaintiff ought to be deemed as a person who rendered distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation for the instant difference.

Therefore, this is applicable.