1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which cited below, shall be revoked.

The defendant on 2011.

1. On December 27, 201, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of a non-conformity of the requirements for a person who rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The court of first instance revoked the noise risk part of the instant disposition, and dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the disposition is lawful.

In this regard, only the plaintiff appealed against the part against the plaintiff during the disposition of this case, the scope of the trial on the party's trial is limited to the part against the plaintiff during the disposition of this case.

2. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 1, 2003, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on July 31, 2010, as the so-called “The Army” and was discharged from military service on the part of Captain.

B. On June 30, 201, the Plaintiff: “Around 2008, at the mountain training course for the military service, there was a pain for the military movement of the military unit; however, the Plaintiff completed the training without having received treatment; on May 13, 2009, at the night aggressive training course in a single-scar zone, the Plaintiff received a strong shock in the Huri and field; but, during the training, received all training without receiving treatment, and received an operation at the National Armed Forces Chuncheon Hospital and Eul University Hospital, etc., and received the examination and treatment at the Eul University Hospital. In addition, during the military service, the Plaintiff recognized the application for registration as a person of distinguished service to the military at the National Armed Forces Chuncheon Hospital, on the ground that “A person of distinguished service to the State was receiving the examination of noise from each other as a result of the occurrence of noise from each other after the shooting.”

C. On December 27, 2011, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition against the Plaintiff for the following reasons.

(1) A satisfaction hall (hereinafter referred to as “instant injury”): The time and circumstances of injury and injury are different stated in the records of outpatients’ medical treatment, nursing records, and each of official certificates, etc.