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 entered on July 5, 201 and was discharged from active service on April 4, 2013, and filed an application for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State on May 30, 2013 after discharge.

B. Around October 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision to the Plaintiff to the effect that the Plaintiff does not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State in relation to the pelvise of the pelvise of the pelvise of the pelvise of the pelvise (hereinafter “the instant injury”). However, the Defendant did not meet the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation.

C. On November 6, 2013, the Plaintiff received a new physical examination at the Central Veterans Hospital on November 6, 2013, but was determined to fall short of the grading standards, and filed an application for a physical reexamination on January 27, 2014, but was determined to fall short of the grading standards.

Accordingly, on March 18, 2014, the Defendant finally decided and notified the Plaintiff of the determination that the Plaintiff failed to meet the standards for rating as a result of the physical examination, and finally decided and notified the Plaintiff of the determination.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). [Grounds for recognition] No dispute, entry in Gap's 3 through 6, Eul's 1 through 6 (including each number), and the whole purport of pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was limited to 1/4 or more sports areas due to the instant difference, and the scope of the movement area for the right-hand satisfaction was limited. However, it should be deemed as falling under class 7 of the disability rating under the Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished

(b)be as indicated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. We examine whether the Plaintiff’s disability grade 7 of the disability rating “the function of a bridge” was hindered.

The disability rating of the part of the bridge recognized as the plaintiff's wife is part of Presidential Decree No. 24653 on June 28, 2013.