1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the determination on the eligibility of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State with respect to ① high-speed turn-to the right, ② both sides and influences, ③ both sides knee, knenee, hnee, and the right side fluor, ② as preliminary, and ③ revocation of the determination on the eligibility of a person eligible for veteran’

However, the court of first instance accepted only the claim for revocation of non-applicable decision of the person who rendered distinguished service to the State against the above injury, and dismissed all the remaining claims.

Since only the defendant appealed against this, the subject of the judgment of this Court is limited to the claim for revocation of the decision that was non-applicable to the requirements of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State.

2. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 16, 199, the Plaintiff was appointed as civilian personnel in the military service on July 16, 199, and was dismissed from office at Grade 8 on December 31, 2005.

B. On April 28, 2014, the Plaintiff sustained from the Defendant, during military service, a “definite exchange” (hereinafter “the instant wound”) and applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State.

On August 14, 2014, the Defendant decided that the Plaintiff constitutes the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation. On the other hand, the Defendant rendered a non-conformity of the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”), on the ground that the instant wounds cannot be deemed as having been incurred in the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the national defense and security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a civilian military employee, who is in charge of the distribution and management of munitions, and thus, was wounded in the instant case by assault by his superior and thus, constitutes the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State.

B. Distribution and management of munitions that the plaintiff asserted by the defendant.