1. The Defendant revoked the disposition that was rendered to the Plaintiff on December 27, 2013 below the degree of injury of the persons who rendered distinguished services to the State.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

The plaintiff entered the Navy on March 25, 1982 and was discharged on September 25, 1984.

On March 6, 1984, the Plaintiff, who was in military service, was faced with the injury of the Plaintiff, i.e., a knife knife knife knife knife knife (hereinafter “the injury”).

The plaintiff was hospitalized in the Naval Port Hospital and was discharged on July 10, 1984 after being hospitalized in the Naval Port Hospital.

On May 16, 2013, the Plaintiff, after discharge, filed an application for registration with the Defendant for distinguished service to the State.

Accordingly, on October 8, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the deliberation of the Merit Reward Judgment Committee of the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs that the Plaintiff determined that he was wounded in performing official duties under the name of the injury and injury, making it possible for the Plaintiff to have determined that he was wounded in the course of performing official duties.

However, on December 27, 2013, based on the result of the deliberation by the 313th Veterans Association on the grounds of the results of the physical examination conducted on December 27, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he/she decided to be ineligible for the application of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “the Act”) on the grounds that the results fall short of the criteria for the disability rating prescribed by

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [This case’s disposition’s ground for recognition ] without dispute, Gap’s evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6, and the purport of the entire argument as to whether the disposition of this case’s is legitimate or not, the plaintiff’s difference in the plaintiff’s assertion is in accordance with Article 14(3) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished

8. A person who is a disability from a bridge or a salking and whose full strength or physical area is limited to at least 3/4 of the disability rating 6-1 classified in class 817 of the disability rating prescribed in Article 8-3 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, or a person whose physical area is restricted by at least 3/4 of the disability rating, notwithstanding appropriate medical treatment of class 7-8122 of the disability rating, and whose external change after external change due to damage to a x-ray, etc.

Nevertheless, it is not possible.