1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 31, 199, the Plaintiff entered the Air Force and served as a cooking soldier. On September 2, 200, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on September 2, 200.

B. The Plaintiff was discharged from active service after receiving treatment for seven months at the Daegu National Armed Forces integrated Hospital for the Armed Forces after moving the remaining part while serving in the military. On August 24, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State with respect to the No. 5-S1 (hereinafter referred to as the “No. 1”) and the No. 4-L5 (hereinafter referred to as the “No. 2”) by asserting that the above disc had re-expliced to the Defendant on August 24, 2007. The Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State with respect to the No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “No. 2”).

C. However, on March 25, 2008, the Board of Patriots and Veterans deliberated and decided that only the first disability of the instant case constituted the requirements of a soldier or policeman wounded on duty as provided by Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”). However, the Plaintiff was judged to fall short of the standards for classification as to the first disability of the instant case in the physical examination conducted twice in the same year.

On November 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State again. On June 19, 2014, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement deliberated and decided that each of the instant wounds constituted the requirements of a person responsible for soldier or policeman under Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “Act on Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation”). Accordingly, on July 2, 2014, the Defendant did not meet the requirements of a soldier or policeman on duty under the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, and on July 2, 2014, the instant No. 2 notified the Plaintiff that he/she does not meet the requirements of a person responsible for soldier or policeman on duty under the Act on Persons of Distinguished

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 4, 10, 12, and 14, respectively;