1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s rating criteria for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation rendered to the Plaintiff on July 29, 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was appointed on October 1, 1979 and retired as a local facility officer on September 30, 2014, and the B Do park management office was in charge of the construction supervision and completion inspection of facilities, facility protection, landscaping management, etc. at the B Do park management office from May 8, 2012 to December 31, 2012.

B. The Plaintiff, in accordance with the B comprehensive maintenance plan formulated on September 25, 2012, after completing the duties to remove facilities of the rest area in the third place of the pertinent Do Park Park, and returned to the office, was suffering from the injury that the Plaintiff sustained from the front-dong car due to the balke of the front-dong car which was on board.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “instant wounds”). On February 4, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision that the requirements prescribed by the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State”) are not recognized, on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that the aforementioned wounds were directly related to the protection of people’s lives and property, but only the requirements prescribed by the Act on the Support for Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant First Disposition”) No. 4

After that, the Defendant rendered a new physical examination to the Plaintiff on July 29, 2015 that the Plaintiff failed to meet the grade criteria.

(2) Each statement of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 12, 14, Eul's evidence No. 1 through 9, and Eul's evidence No. 11 through 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments, as a whole, without dispute, to determine a person eligible for veteran's compensation for the injury of this case (hereinafter "the ground for recognition").

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s primary assertion was completed the removal of illegal facilities in B Do parks, and returned to the office.