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 April 10, 1953, the Plaintiff entered the Army and discharged the Plaintiff from active service on July 31, 1965.

B. On December 22, 2000, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State, alleging that “the Plaintiff incurred Cheongri-ri disability due to guns while serving in the police station after entering the army.”

On May 25, 2001, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s hearing disability and military service.”

However, on November 26, 2002, the plaintiff filed an administrative litigation and the Seoul High Court rendered a decision to revoke the above rejection disposition, and on February 28, 2003, the above decision became final and conclusive.

C. Accordingly, on April 29, 2003, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff constitutes a soldier or policeman wounded on duty by deeming the “near of both sides” (hereinafter “the instant wound”), and determined that the Plaintiff constituted a soldier or policeman wounded on duty. As a result of a new physical examination for determining a disability rating on April 29, 2003, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff was “ Grade 7 301” (a person who has a serious functional disorder in the Cheongdo’s hearing ability), and “Class 5 94” (a person who has a high level of functional disorder in the Cheongdo’s hearing ability) as a result of the re-examination on November 24, 201.

On September 4, 2015, the Plaintiff received a re-examination at the Central Veterans Hospital. On December 21, 2015, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement deliberated and decided that the disability rating due to the instant wounds constituted “Class 5 2103” (the two persons who have a high level of functional disorder in their own ability), and on January 8, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of re-determination that the disability rating falls under “Class 5 2103”.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on July 22, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is subsequent to the plaintiff's admission.