1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on December 13, 2016 below the grade criteria shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 22, 2011, the Plaintiff entered the Army on December 21, 2012, and was discharged from the maturity on December 21, 2012, and filed an application for registration of persons of distinguished service to the State on August 29, 2013. Accordingly, on August 12, 2016, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff fell under the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation with respect to the right-hand satisfaction (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

B. On September 8, 2016, the Plaintiff was subject to a physical examination to determine the degree of disability of the instant wound, but the Defendant rendered a decision on December 13, 2016 that the degree of disability falls short of the degree of disability (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 8, 11 to 13, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was discharged from military service with the wound of this case, and then has not been engaged in daily life with the right-hand shots so far. The disposition of this case that the plaintiff failed to meet the disability rating standards is unlawful.

B. The applicant for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State bears the burden of proving that he/she suffered wounds in the performance of judgment and the degree of physical disability is higher than that prescribed by law.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Du26589 Decided August 22, 2013). According to the result of the physical commission of the president of the Gannam University Hospital in this case, the Plaintiff was subject to a limited restriction of 1/4 or more of the normal movement scope (based on the passive movement scope) due to the difference in the instant case where the Plaintiff had a view of taking part in the part of the Gancheon University Hospital in his/her superior section 0 degrees, 40 degrees, 20 degrees, 30 degrees, 30 degrees, 20 degrees, and 1/4 or more of the normal movement scope (based on the passive movement scope) due to the difference in the instant case. The honorable treatment and treatment of persons of distinguished services to the State, etc.