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 January 19, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Army and received training at horse around March 2016, and was prescribed as a medicine by the diagnosis of the relevant salt base on May 30, 2016. On June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff performed physical activities (cathos) on the left-hand scatum scatum (hereinafter “instant wounds”) and was discharged from military service on September 6, 2016, after undergoing a surgery on the left-hand scatum (hereinafter “instant wounds”).

B. On September 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of the instant wounds with respect to the Defendant, and did not meet the requirements under Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”). However, the Plaintiff was determined as having satisfied the requirements under the former part of Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”), and was subject to

Accordingly, on February 8, 2017, the Plaintiff underwent a physical examination at the Central Veterans Hospital. It was recognized as a functional disorder of the left-hand slot, but it was presented that the degree of such disorder falls short of the grading standards.

C. On May 16, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the Plaintiff as non-persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that the degree of the instant wounds did not meet the criteria for disability rating.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including the number of each unit), the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. With respect to the Defendant’s assertion that the instant disposition is lawful on the grounds of the grounds of the disposition and the relevant statutes, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was lawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s failure to function on the part of the pipe of the different bridge and constitutes at least Grade 7 and classification number 8122 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State.