1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On December 17, 2012, the Defendant’s noise levels on both sides against the Plaintiff and two names.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff was discharged from active service on October 1, 1997 by subrogation on September 30, 2002.

B. On August 4, 2005, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the Defendant on the ground that the “salary name” occurred while serving in the military, and was recognized as a wound in performing official duties, i.e., a wound during the performance of official duties. However, as a result of a new physical examination conducted on December 28, 2005, the Plaintiff was determined as falling short of the grade standard.

C. On June 12, 2012, the Plaintiff again filed an application for a physical examination for re-verification for the registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the Defendant. The Defendant recognized only “the name of both sides” on September 28, 2012 as an official wound and did not recognize “the noise in both sides” as an official wound.

Therefore, according to the plaintiff's hearing of force on September 3, 2001, the defendant issued a non-competent decision-making disposition (hereinafter referred to as "disposition in this case") on the following grounds: "The right-to-hand hearing shows the plaintiff's hearing opinion within the normal range, but the left-hand hearing opinion is confirmed within the normal range; since the noise causes are no longer the cause of noise, "the noise in the right-hand hearing" shall be recognized as an official wound, but "the noise in the right-hand side" shall not be recognized as an official wound, and "the noise in the right-hand side" (hereinafter referred to as "the noise in this case") shall not be recognized as an official wound." On December 17, 2012, the defendant issued a non-competent decision-making disposition (hereinafter referred to as "disposition in this case").

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's return to the left-hand side of the plaintiff was diagnosed by the Korea Noise Agency prior to his discharge. Thus, the disposition of this case was unlawful under the premise that the plaintiff's hearing power prior to his discharge was normal. 2) The defendant's hearing power prior to his discharge to the left-hand side of the plaintiff's assertion was 25dB under the 6-minute law.