The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The scope of the judgment of this Court is that the Plaintiff sought revocation of each of the decisions made on February 1, 2013 regarding the Plaintiff’s application for registration of persons of distinguished service to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground of the occurrence of “sullar Nos. 1 (S. 1)” and “sullar Nos. 2 (S. 2)” as to the Plaintiff’s application for registration of persons of distinguished service to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation. The first instance court dismissed the respective decisions made on the No. 2 and the first instance court accepted the part of the claim for revocation of the decision based on the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State as to the No. 1.

On the other hand, the defendant did not appeal the part against the defendant against the defendant (the part against which the person eligible for veteran's compensation with respect to No. 1). Since the plaintiff did not appeal the part concerning the decision related to No. 2 among the part against the plaintiff, each of the above claims was excluded from the scope of this court's trial, this court decides only the part concerning the claim for revocation of the non-conformity of the person who rendered distinguished service to the State

2. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the court's judgment to this case, and thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation as to this case is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

3. The Plaintiff asserts that “the Plaintiff was the first prize during the military training, but the training was included in various training to cultivate the basic physical capabilities and combat forces necessary for performing his/her duties, such as the handling of dangerous substances, such as boundaries, search, clothes, checks, intelligence activities, explosives, etc., which are directly related to national security and security. Therefore, the Plaintiff is deemed to have suffered the said wounds due to the performance of duties and education and training directly related to national security and security.”