1. On May 17, 2012, the Defendant’s decision on the non-conformity of the requirements for a person who rendered distinguished services to the State to the Plaintiff is in accordance with L5-cheon S1.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered on December 9, 2008 and was discharged from military service on October 7, 2009.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the purport that the Plaintiff had rendered distinguished services to the State, alleging that the Plaintiff had fulfilled his or her duties (such as actions for 24 persons during his or her training) against the Defendant for long time after discharge. On December 24, 2009, the Defendant made a decision that the Plaintiff recognized the Plaintiff’s ‘sical signboard escape test No. 3-4 (L3-4)/H3-4 (H3-4)/ ex post facto change in his or her duties.

C. However, the Plaintiff subsequently received a determination below the rating as a result of the physical examination conducted with respect to the above recognition status (L3-4).

On September 29, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State with the purport that he/she applied for recognition of He/she was injured (No. 3-4 in need of escape from the external disc drive, No. 4-5 invertebrate Correspoon No. 4-5, and No. 5- thousand) on the Defendant for the same reason as above.

E. Accordingly, on May 17, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision that the part of L4-5 and L5-S1 pertaining to the part of L5-S1 did not constitute the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the status after chemical melting 3-4 (L3-4)” is not identical to the previous one. However, the Defendant determined that “the status after chemical melting 3-4 (L3-4) was different from the previous one.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy facts, Eul's entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (if available, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the whole purport of the pleading.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion did not have any pain before entering the Gun, and there was no problem at the time of receiving education and training for a new soldier.

(2).