1. On April 30, 2018, the Defendant’s decision to deny the Plaintiff’s eligibility as a person eligible for veteran’s compensation.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 20, 2008, the Plaintiff entered the Army and discharged from active service on June 9, 2009 (or on June 15, 2009). On June 15, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant on the ground that “On May 19, 2008, the Plaintiff was issued a disposition to refuse to grant the registration by the Defendant of distinguished service to the State on October 9, 2009, for the following reasons: (a) on the middle that the Plaintiff contained a training non-explosion gun in a transport box, so as to make it easy for the Plaintiff to hold it out from the intermediate; (b) on the day of the completion of the instant accident; (c) on the basis that there was an occurrence of the lusium flight certificate L5-S1 (the state after the operation; hereinafter “the instant accident”).

B. On January 11, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration with the Defendant to the State, but the Defendant, on April 30, 2018, rendered a decision on the Plaintiff’s ground that “it is difficult to recognize that the instant wound was caused by the performance of duties or education and training, or that it was rapidly aggravated above the natural progress speed” (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was unlawful in taking into account the following circumstances: (a) on May 19, 2008, the Plaintiff was involved in the instant accident where the number of persons engaged in providing distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation did not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that the instant difference was a sediative disease; and (b) on the ground that the number of persons engaged in providing distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation did not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that the instant difference was a sediative disease.

B. (1) Determination is below the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State.