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 April 19, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant for distinguished service to the State.

B. The Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement (hereinafter “the instant wounds”) decided that “the persons eligible for veteran’s compensation have met the requirements prescribed in Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “the Veterans Act”), and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of its deliberation on August 12, 2013.

C. On August 26, 2013, the Plaintiff received a new physical examination. On November 29, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition to refuse the registration of military personnel, police officers, and police officers (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 to 3, Eul 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion occurred in the joint section of the official title, and the plaintiff can not run the Gu newsletter or run the line of a college, and a pipe with severe pains when putting stairs out.

The Plaintiff constitutes disability rating 6-2, 8121, and 7-2, and the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Patriots and Veterans Act, Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, which applies to the Plaintiff, and Article 8-3 and attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Meritorious Act

8.(a)

The term "sports area" as referred to in the disability contents of Grade 6, 2, 8121, and 7, 8122 in the paragraph is interpreted as measuring the dynamic exercise scope (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du26377, Apr. 14, 201) (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du26377, Apr. 14, 201), and as to the fact that the Plaintiff constitutes Grade 6, 2, 8121, or 7, 8122 in the disability rating, it is solely based on the evidence No. 3, measuring the scope of active exercise measured on April 1, 2013.