1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The grounds alleged in the court of first instance in the Plaintiff’s appeal do not differ significantly from the contents already asserted in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was based on the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the record of the evidence No. 34,35,37, the file recycling stored in the CD No. 36, and the fact-finding report on the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, and the record of the fact-finding on the CD No. 36

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court regarding this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following supplementary judgments, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Supplementary decision” In an administrative litigation, whether an administrative disposition is illegal shall be determined based on the statutes and facts at the time of an administrative disposition, and it shall not be affected by the amendment or repeal of statutes or changes in the actual state after the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du10684, Jul. 9, 2002; Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1811, May 11, 2007). Therefore, the court as a court is in accordance with Article 8-3 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, which is the Act and subordinate statutes at

2.(a)

The application of the criteria for determining the grade of mutatis mutandis application of the plaintiff's disability [the name shall be two different persons in two or more different examinations (tinnitom) and shall be accompanied by a rioter with at least 50 ccins (dB) level 7 (2107) with the air level 50 ccins (dB).], and the result of the physical examination of the plaintiff cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the result of the physical examination of the plaintiff did not meet the above grade criteria.

Article 8-3 [Attachment 4] of the above Enforcement Rule, which was filed by the plaintiff, shall be considered to have been dismissed by the Constitutional Court.

In addition, the amendment work of the law is not prior to the defendant.