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 November 17, 1975, the Plaintiff was serving in the Army for more than 1976 and sustained an injury as one-lane in the right-hand framework. Around December 1977, the Plaintiff fell from work, and was inflicted two-lanes on the right-hand pleke-off bend, and did not receive any particular treatment. On May 1, 1978, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the military hospital, and was hospitalized in the military hospital for the right-hand pleke-minor diagnosis, and was discharged from active service on August 22, 1978.

B. On November 2, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant to grant distinguished services to the State, and on the ground that his/her negligence was concurrently injured with each other’s negligence without any inevitable reason, the Plaintiff was recognized as a disabled veterans in the line of duty under Article 73-2(1) of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 11041, Sept. 15, 201). However, on the ground that the result of a new physical examination, the Plaintiff was determined to have failed to meet each grade standard on February 10, 201 as a result of the new physical examination.

On November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff again filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State, and on the ground that there is a proximate causal relation with the military performance of official duties, recognized the injury as a military person and police officer under Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “the Veterans’ Compensation Act”), but the Defendant rendered a judgment that there was no previous grade and change (class standard) (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on January 29, 2015 as a result of the re-verification physical examination.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 8 evidence, Eul 1 to 6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that (1) the scope of restriction on the right shoulder exercise is 42%, and there is a difference of 8% in comparison with 50% of the disability rating 6-2.