1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 19, 1952, B, the husband of the Plaintiff, entered the Army, participated in the Korean War on March 26, 1954, and was discharged from the service on March 26, 1954. At the time of the participation in the war, the Plaintiff’s husband (hereinafter “instant wounds”) was determined as having been on October 13, 1962 as disability No. 52 (current Grade 6.2.52) and registered as a person of distinguished service to the State (former Grade 6.52) on May 15, 190, after having undergone a physical examination for reclassification on May 15, 1990, the Plaintiff was determined as having been comprehensively determined as having been 505 of Grade V 5 (In fact, e.g., hydropathal pathy and neney 6.115 (1) Mapy 6.343 mal part mal part 6.43 mal part 15).

B. Thereafter, on January 22, 2008, B filed an application for a reclassification physical examination with the Defendant on January 22, 2008, and received a comprehensive determination of class 5 and class 505 (Class 5 and class 6(2)43) in a physical examination for disability classification conducted on February 28, 2008.

B On January 5, 2011, the Defendant applied for a reclassification medical examination to the Defendant. On January 21, 2011, the Defendant rendered a comprehensive judgment under class 6(1) (Article 6(1)(Article 6(2)43) of the Malibro 6th (Article 6(1)6(1)5 of the Malibro 6(2)43 of the Malibro 6’s Malibro 25th of the same month) in the physical examination conducted on January 21, 2011.

B filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on January 21, 201 on the ground that the comprehensive judgment rendered as of January 21, 201 as of January 21, 201, which was lower than that of the former Grade 5, was illegal and unfair, but died on April 23, 201, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the above claim on August 9, 201.

C. On October 14, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional confirmation with the Defendant on the ground that “long-term functional disability, such as scarcity, scarcity damage, etc.” of B (hereinafter “the deceased”) as an additional prize.

Accordingly, on April 25, 2012, the defendant is "snick and fluent fluor of metal."