1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The Defendant’s “noise” against the Plaintiff on December 7, 2011.

1. The scope of this Court’s adjudication requested revocation of the notification disposition as a result of the deliberation on the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State on December 7, 2011, against the Defendant’s “defluence” and “ Noise Influence”. The first instance court partially accepted the Plaintiff’s request, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for revocation of the notification disposition as a result of deliberation on the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State on the basis of “defluence in providing distinguished services to the State”, and dismissed the remainder of the request for revocation of

Therefore, since only the plaintiff appealed against the part against himself, the scope of this Court's judgment is limited to the part of the claim for cancellation of the notification disposition (non-applicable to the requirements for military discipline) as a result of the deliberation of the requirements for a person who rendered distinguished services

2. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 21, 2006, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on August 8, 2008 by entering the Gun and serving in the first rank of the Navy, and discharged from military service on August 8, 2008.

B. On April 24, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for the registration of a person of distinguished service with the State by asserting that “the Plaintiff suffered from Cheongsung damage on the left-hand side” in the performance of official duties in the military. However, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement deliberated and decided on July 27, 2009 that “the above wound is not recognized as a wound related to official duties.”

C. On July 15, 2011, the Plaintiff additionally filed an application for re-registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State, asserting that “the Plaintiff incurred pseudonyms and noise hazards” in the military performance. D.

On December 7, 2011, the Defendant is deemed to be the Plaintiff’s suffering from noise (hereinafter “instant wounds”).

In the case of a soldier or policeman on duty who does not meet the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”) was subject to a disposition of notification as a result of the deliberation of the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”), since the Maritime Port Hospital and Private Hospital’s Net History Inspection shows a somewhat high level of Cheongneology in the ancient calendar as a result of the opinion of the opinion of the plenary session

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, 1-2.