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 April 13, 1972, the Plaintiff entered the Army and discharged from military service on February 24, 1976.

B. On June 1973, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service after being discharged from military service for a long time at the National Armed Forces M&D Hospital, and applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on October 1, 2007, which was recognized as a requirement for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State. On March 25, 2008, the Plaintiff was subject to physical examination at the Seoul Veterans Hospital on March 25, 2008 for the determination of disability rating, and was judged to fall short of the standard for classification.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this and filed an administrative litigation with the Suwon District Court. The Plaintiff received a written physical examination from the Seoul Veterans Hospital in accordance with the recommendation of the full bench for the adjustment and received a disability rating 7-702, and the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 984, Jun. 29, 2012) constitutes class 702, but the above Enforcement Rule was amended on June 29, 2012, and the current Act constitutes class 7-5111.

was judged and registered as a person of distinguished service to the State.

On March 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for a re-examination on March 7, 2016, and received a physical examination at the Central Veterans Hospital on April 5, 2016, and subsequently, the Board of Patriots and Veterans decided that the instant injury and disease does not meet the criteria for disability ratings, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the results of the re-examination on October 24, 2016.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [No dispute exists on the ground of recognition], Gap 1 through 3, Gap 7, Eul 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that his head has disturbed, his blood and drinked, had a luxity, and had a luxity, and had a luxity, and that the previous disability rating would be increased due to chronic engine infections, etc., and applied for a physical examination.