1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. (1) On February 8, 2011, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that “The Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from the Army on June 22, 2012 on the part of the first instance on the part of the first instance on the part of the Defendant on June 28, 2012, the Plaintiff was deemed to have been different from the former on the grounds that “The Plaintiff was deemed to have been disabled in the post-scradation escape certificate L4-5, L5-S1 (part of the post-scradation, the post-scination of the post-scination, and the post-scination of the post-scination) during military service,” and on November 29, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition of refusal against the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff was partially disabled in relation to official duties.”

Accordingly, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling citing the plaintiff's appeal on September 24, 2013 on the ground that "the defendant is recognized as a public service-related difference with the Marin, 2013 in addition to the protruding escape certificate."

B. On December 26, 2013, the Defendant issued a new physical examination to the Plaintiff, and notified the Plaintiff on January 21, 2014, that “In accordance with the opinion that, as a result of the physical examination conducted, the person was continuously suffering from the aggravation of Mami-Mami military, the 6th grade 117 of the disability rating is determined.”

Accordingly, the Plaintiff raised an objection on March 19, 2014, and the Defendant, on April 22, 2014, notified on May 12, 2014, to the effect that “the case shall be determined as grade 6 grade 117 of the same disability rating as the existing one” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Article 22(1) of the former Administrative Appeals Commission Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Feb. 24, 2015) provides an administrative appeal to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence Nos. 1-6, Eul evidence Nos. 1-6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. (i) Whether the instant disposition is legitimate, Articles 6-3 and 6-4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, Article 14 and attached Table 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and attached Table 4 of Article 8-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.