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 September 26, 1975, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on June 27, 1978, and applied for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State on August 17, 2015. On this basis, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff had suffered minor pressure 11 and 12 times in physical training (hereinafter “the instant injury”). On December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff determined that the instant injury constituted the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (accidents) on December 23, 2015.

B. On February 3, 2016, the Plaintiff underwent a physical examination to determine the degree of disability of the instant wound, and the Defendant determined that the degree of disability of the Plaintiff falls short of the degree of disability, around May 10, 2016.

C. On September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for a physical reexamination, and the Defendant rendered a decision against the Plaintiff on September 30, 2016 as not constituting a person eligible for veteran’s compensation.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10; the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff was discharged from the wound of this case until now after he was discharged from military service by the wound of this case, and then suffering from post-treatment that has difficulty in walking and melting spine. Thus, the disposition of this case that falls short of the disability rating standard is unlawful since spine has functional disorder or modified disorder in spine.

B. The applicant for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State bears the burden of proving that he/she suffered wounds in the performance of judgment and the degree of physical disability is higher than that prescribed by law.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Du26589 Decided August 22, 2013). According to the records in the instant case, the Plaintiff’s physical commission of the Director of the Korea Human Property and Medical Center (hereinafter “Director”) and the records in Eul’s No.7, and the result of this court’s physical commission of the Director of the Korea Human Property and Medical Center (hereinafter “The Plaintiff’s injury”).