1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke below shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 15, 1996, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on February 28, 1997 after he was discharged from military service.

On June 3, 1996, the Plaintiff filed an application for the registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State with respect to the Defendant, alleging that in the Headquarters B, the Maritime Headquarters Headquarters B had caused the 'Mimula Certificate' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Mimula Certificate') by being

(hereinafter referred to as “instant application for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State”).

On May 22, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition that the Plaintiff does not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that proximate causal relation between the instant wounds and

(hereinafter referred to as the "decision of refusal to register a person of distinguished service to the State of this case" and "decision of refusal to register a person of distinguished service to the State of this case" and the above two dispositions are collectively referred to as the "each of the above dispositions" / [the grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 7

2. Whether the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of persons eligible for veteran's compensation is legitimate

A. The Defendant’s main defense of this case asserts that the part of the instant lawsuit pertaining to the claim for revocation of the registration of a person eligible for veteran’s compensation has been filed beyond the filing period.

B. Determination 1) The following facts may be acknowledged, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 2 through 7, the Plaintiff received a disposition to refuse the registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “previous disposition”) from the Defendant on January 28, 2010 and September 21, 2011, and filed an administrative appeal against it. However, the Plaintiff received each dismissal ruling on July 27, 2010 and April 10, 2012, and again received each of the instant dispositions against the Defendant on May 22, 2013 by filing an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State.

B. On August 19, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted the instant complaint and stated only the purport of claiming revocation of the disposition rejecting the registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State of this case among each of the instant dispositions in its purport.