beta
Text
1. On September 6, 2013, the Defendant revoked a decision that falls short of the disability rating rendered to the Plaintiff.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 30, 2006, the Plaintiff was enlisted as a noncommissioned officer of the Army Special Service, and was discharged from military service on June 30, 2009. On July 3, 2009, the Plaintiff: “On June 6, 2008, the Plaintiff returned to the outside of the right kne, and received knee, knee, knee,” and applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “instant difference”); on the application basis of the following: (a) on July 3, 2009, the Plaintiff brought an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that “the Plaintiff received knee, knee, knee, knee, knee, knee, knee, knene, knee, knee, knee, knee, knene,” and the Plaintiff filed a disposition to revoke the disposition.
B. On June 27, 2013, when the Plaintiff received a new physical examination, the Plaintiff was determined below the grading standard, and on July 19, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for a physical examination on July 19, 2013, but the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff to the person of distinguished service to the State on September 6, 2013 on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the grading standard.
hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"
(c) The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on October 10, 2013, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said claim on March 25, 2014. [Grounds for recognition] The facts of no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1, 2, and Eul’s evidence 1 through 9 (including various numbers, and the purport of the whole pleadings)
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff measured the degree of new physical examination of the wound of this case, and measured the unstableness of the right kne, at least 10 meters. Thus, "a person whose safety is at least 10 meters due to damage to the public interest despite appropriate treatment" under attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Support of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State refers to a case where the absolute value is at least 10 meters, and even if so, the plaintiff constitutes this case's assertion.