1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 8, 1976, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on November 16, 1977, and was determined as a soldier or policeman having been subject to the requirements for a soldier or policeman’s injury with regard to “satise satise sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sat sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sat sate sat sate sat sat sate sat sat sat.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was affected by extreme stress due to the instant wound, and caused the outbreak of donation. The Plaintiff’s disability rating constitutes class 6, class 5203, which grants the disability that caused the loss of cryptiveness due to nephical damage, and thus, constitutes a class 7, class 5204, which grants the disability that caused the loss of nephicality to a single high level. The instant disposition was unlawful.

B. The applicant for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State is liable to prove that he/she suffered wounds in the performance of judgment, or that the degree of physical disability therefrom constitutes higher than that prescribed by statutes.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Du26589 Decided August 22, 2013). Examining the instant case in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem the Plaintiff to have suffered disability due to the instant wounds that the Plaintiff lost its ability due to negotition damage.