1. On November 24, 2011, the Defendant constitutes a non-requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State for “h4-5” committed against the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 20, 2010, the Plaintiff entered the Army as B students at the age of 19 years, and was discharged from military service on May 13, 201.

B. On May 18, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State for “the escape certificate of a protruding signboard” against the Defendant, “the escape certificate of a protruding-5, the semi-months of the right slot, and the slot sle in both sides (hereinafter “application filing”).

C. On November 24, 2011, the Defendant rendered a decision on the Plaintiff’s non-conformity of the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”) for the following reasons:

(A) The occurrence or aggravation of a disease is difficult to deem that there is a proximate causal relation with the military performance of official duties, in view of the following: (i) the escape certificate of an essential signboard was created without an event on the third day for pleading; (ii) the occurrence or aggravation of a disease was difficult to be deemed as having been in a proximate causal relation with the military performance of official duties, taking into account the fact that (a) the escape certificate of an essential signboard was created without an event on the part of the 1-month base; and (b) the TRI reading taken on June 10, 2010, which was presented as a result of the TRI reading taken on the part of the TR4-5 page.

6. As a result of the SDR reading taken on 17.17. The opinion is presented, “no opinion is likely to be regarded as acutely, even though there is no provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings provokings.

The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to review the instant disposition, and the Defendant maintained the instant disposition on May 3, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 4, 17, 18 evidence (Evidence Nos. 2, including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff.