1. The Defendant’s decision that rendered against the Plaintiff on June 27, 2014 that constituted a non-conformity of the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 1, 1976, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on June 5, 1979 at the 25th Armed Forces.

B. On April 1, 1977, at the time of military service, the Plaintiff was on board a water-supply railer to carry out water supply transport duties for road packaging construction in the body of an association, but the Plaintiff was on board a water-supply railer, and the Plaintiff was on the part of the stringer with the water tank and the stringer’s body was cut off (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant on January 11, 200, on the ground that the instant accident occurred from the wounds, such as “An influoral aggregate” (hereinafter “the instant No. 1 disability”) and “Mauri (Yeman 5-Yuok 1 aggregate),” etc. (hereinafter “instant No. 2 disability”).

Upon deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans on March 2, 2001, the Defendant determined that the instant No. 2 fell under the requirements for soldier or policeman wounded on duty, and only the instant No. 1 was a soldier or policeman wounded on duty. The Plaintiff did not undergo a physical examination for classification of disability ratings concerning the instant No. 1, and thus dismissed the said application for registration.

E. On December 24, 2001, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-verification of persons who rendered distinguished service to the State, but failed to undergo physical examinations, and even thereafter, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-verification of persons who rendered distinguished service to the State on June 21, 2005, around January 9, 2008, and around February 12, 2010, respectively, but all of the relevant physical examinations results were determined to be “less the grade standard”.

F. The Plaintiff filed an application for re-verification on January 27, 2014, and the Defendant re-examineed the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24013, Jul. 31, 2012). As a result, the first award does not meet the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State, but falls under the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation