1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 22, 1981, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from active service on August 23, 1994 as First Lieutenant. On November 1, 1994, the Plaintiff was discharged from active service on May 31, 201 as First Lieutenant, and was discharged from active service on May 31, 201.

B. On June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State with different points: (a) the Defendant applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that “the inner side spacifism within the unit, the left spacifism, and the internal side spacifism (spacifism)” was different from each other.

C. On December 30, 2014, the Defendant rendered a physical examination on the Plaintiff on December 30, 2014, the following: (a) the difference between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s side scarcity, the left side scarlet fever, the left side scarlet fever, and the person eligible for veteran’s compensation under Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “Act on Veterans’ Compensation”); (b) the difference between the two parts of the “narism in both sides (hereinafter “the instant wound”); (c) the difference between the two parts of the person eligible for veteran’s compensation under Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State”) was not reasonable causal relation with the performance of their duties or education and training, and thus, constitutes a person eligible for veteran’s compensation under Article 2(1)2(b) of the Act on Veterans and Compensation Persons of Distinguished Service.

The Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition pursuant to Article 74-18(1) of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, but the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on February 16, 2015 that the Plaintiff would not accept the Plaintiff’s objection on the same ground as the instant disposition.

E. On March 26, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the Plaintiff by deeming that the Plaintiff’s notification of rejection of the Plaintiff’s objection was a disposition of refusal of meritorious service to the State, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission filed an administrative appeal against the same.