1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. The plaintiff was discharged from military service on February 1, 1965, and was discharged from military service on October 3, 1966 through September 29, 196, after served in Vietnam, from military service on October 12, 1967.

B. On or around July 9, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on or around March 16, 2007, and received a decision that the injury to the left-hand side and the left-hand side (hereinafter “instant injury”) constituted class 6-2 of the disability rating around November 7, 2007 upon receiving the relevant decision from the Defendant on the person of distinguished service to the State.

C. After that, on June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for a re-examination on the ground that the instant disability had deteriorated, and the Defendant, on November 30, 2016, notified the Plaintiff of the decision that the Plaintiff constitutes Class 6 (3) of the disability rating (Grade 7: 4115, damage to the left: 7 grade 4115, damage to the left: 510).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). 【The ground for recognition of the instant disposition” has no dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, and 5-1, and Gap evidence 7-2, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s difference in the Plaintiff’s assertion is unfair in granting a disability rating lower than the previous one even though it did not differ from the time of the initial registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State, and it is necessary to add it to two or more different bodies, and thus, the Plaintiff’s difference falls under class 6 class 2. However, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Circumstances that are recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of pleadings in the statement Nos. 2 through 4 of the judgment, namely, ① the physical examination of a trial examiner conducted a physical examination of the Plaintiff and conducted a physical examination of the Plaintiff constitutes a person subject to restrictions on his/her employment even due to his/her disorder such as construction of malule and antistains, and low flaging, etc. (Grade 7 4115).