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. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State" is "the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No. 30343 of Jan. 7, 2020)"; "Article 8-2 of the same Enforcement Rule" is as "Article 8-3 of the former 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. 1593 of Jan. 31, 2020; hereinafter "former Enforcement Rule")"; "the result of physical reexamination of the B hospital head of the court of first instance" is as "the result of physical examination of the B hospital head of the court of first instance"; "the plaintiff's assertion that part of the judgment is "the additional distance between the court and the court" is as follows.

Therefore, based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is quoted.

2. The further determination of this Court

A. The plaintiff asserts that even in this court, the plaintiff satisfies the 7th grade requirement of disability rating because the plaintiff falls under the category 3, i.e., "a person whose change after credit due to damage to pel-ray shows emulsion in the examination, such as X-ray shooting, regardless of appropriate treatment."

B. However, in full view of the content structure and purport of the relevant statutes, in order to fall under the category 3 as prescribed in the attached Table 4 of the former Enforcement Rule, the phrase “a person who, despite appropriate treatment, has a clear change in the post-exploitivity from the examination of X-ray, etc.” is insufficient, and “a person who, thereby, has a function disorder in the Do” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Du33186, Jun. 10, 2016). Here, “a person who has a function disorder in the Do.”