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 October 22, 2012, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on July 21, 2014 after entering the Army and serving in the Air Operations Headquarters B.

B. On November 29, 2013, during the truck maintenance work, the Plaintiff suffered from the accident of beeuting the left part of the upper part of the truck repair work, and applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the Defendant on October 27, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant wound”), following the diagnosis of the 5th part of the unit’s number book, the dialogic fever of the 5th part of the left part, and the 5th part of the left part, and applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the Defendant on March 25, 2015 (hereinafter “instant wound”). On March 25, 2015, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff was a person who rendered distinguished services to the State with the above wound recognized as a wound.

C. On April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff received a new physical examination for the classification of disability ratings at the Central Veterans Hospital; however, the Plaintiff was determined to have failed to meet the standards for classification; and accordingly, was subject to a physical examination conducted at the Central Veterans Hospital on September 3, 2015, but was determined to have failed to meet the standards for classification after deliberation and resolution by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement; however, on January 8, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision on non-level of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On January 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on April 22, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 10 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes “a person who is subject to restrictions on the level of employment due to his/her functional disorder” as prescribed in attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State due to the instant disability (hereinafter “the Act”) or “a person whose level of employment is limited due to his/her physical disorder” or “a person whose degree of injury has not been assessed against his/her functional disorder in

Therefore, the plaintiff.