1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. At around 03:00 on January 28, 1987, when a police official was in office as a police official, the Plaintiff was called to the site for a disturbance report of drinking alcohol, and was sprinked for a sprink and sprinked, and two sprinkers (two sprinkers in bad faith) were completely cut down and was treated as a sprinked, and sprinked. On February 26, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that six sprinks were damaged by performance of official duties, including two sprinkers who were completely cut off and four splates who were additionally damaged in the process of Bo-chul, and applied for registration of persons of distinguished service

B. On May 4, 2010, after deliberation by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered a disposition to partially recognize the requirements of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State that only met the requirements of soldier or policeman on duty, and subsequently rendered a disposition to determine the amount below the grading standards in a physical examination for the classification of disability ratings.

The plaintiff is dissatisfied with each of the above dispositions and filed an administrative appeal and administrative litigation, but all of them was dismissed.

C. On March 10, 2016, the Plaintiff stated that during military service, he was injured by “integrative chrony (many chronitis), salutism, salutism, and Cheong-dominarya,” and that he applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on March 10, 2016.

The defendant, which was recognized as a soldier or policeman, constitutes a soldier or policeman on duty with regard to "the second complete escape from the upper left left and right," and the defendant issued a disposition of refusal to partially recognize a soldier or policeman on duty with regard to "the fact that he or she does not meet the requirements for soldier or policeman on duty," but the plaintiff is dissatisfied with such requirements. However, although the defendant filed an administrative appeal for "the plaintiff's appeal that he or she is not a soldier or policeman on duty, he or she does not meet the requirements for a person or policeman on duty," part of the plaintiff's applicant's name (one party's name, second name, language, and pathy) was ruled as an administrative appeal and requested ex officio review.

The defendant.