1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff was admitted to the Navy on May 21, 1981 and was serving for the same year.

6. During the training on November 1, 1982, after being hospitalized after being diagnosed of acute pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary and cerebral Zinitis (hereinafter “instant wounds”), it was sent to the National Armed Forces-in Integrated Hospital for the Armed Forces under the conditions of high fever and anti-competial marination.

B. On May 13, 1982, the Plaintiff was registered as a soldier or policeman wounded on duty after being judged at Grade 6 in a physical examination for the new grade of injury.

C. Since then, on November 6, 1996, November 10, 199; and December 11, 2002, the Plaintiff was judged as Grade 5 through a physical examination for reclassification; and on April 18, 2005, the Plaintiff was determined as Grade 4 through a physical examination for reclassification and re-determination on April 23, 2013.

On June 2, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for a re-examination of the instant wounds with respect to the Defendant, and the same year.

6. 27. As a result of the physical examination conducted at the Busan Veterans Hospital, the medical specialists belonging to the above hospital expressed that it fell short of the grade criteria for acute pulmonary pulmonary resuscitation among the instant wounds, and that it falls under class 4111 for brain infection.

E. On July 26, 2017, the Board of Patriots and Veterans deliberated and resolved on the Plaintiff at the same level of disability as that of the above medical specialist’s opinion, and on August 1, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that there is no change in the disability rating of a soldier or policeman wounded on duty (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. On August 19, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed it on February 23, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is in a situation where the body cannot be accumulated due to the instant difference, and thus constitutes at least Grade 3 of the disability rating under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, the Enforcement

Therefore, it is true.