1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 29, 2007, the Plaintiff entered the Army and served in the 27th Military Service Corps at the 27th Military Service Corps, and was discharged from active service on September 26, 2009.

B. On October 13, 2008, the Plaintiff, while serving in the military, engaged in the work of towing a dump truck by connecting the power generator with a dump truck, and was subject to the accident that cut off by 3 and 4 resin on the left-hand side between the vehicle and the connected dump truck.

C. On January 8, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that “The 3, 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 500 (hereinafter “instant wounds”) were different from each other, and the Defendant recognized the instant wounds as having met the requirements for soldier or policeman on duty, but it was determined on April 7, 2010 to have failed to meet the grading standard in a new physical examination conducted on April 7, 2010.

On April 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State to the Defendant and conducted a re-verification physical examination. However, it was determined below the grade criteria, and the Defendant rendered a decision on non-eligible persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on December 30, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 (including virtual numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition was rendered on the ground that the Defendant did not meet the disability rating after undergoing the formal examination without a thorough inspection of the exerciseable area, although the Plaintiff was unable to use his left-hand 3 and 4 parts in his daily life due to the instant difference.

Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. In order for the Plaintiff to fall under class 7, which is the minimum standard for disability ratings to be granted with respect to the instant difference, the part of the left-hand part of the 3, 4 balance will be lost.