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 March 1, 2001, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on March 31, 2006 after he was so-called, and on November 28, 201, the Plaintiff was recognized to have served on the part of the Defendant for re-registration, and on November 28, 201, the Plaintiff was recognized to have served on the part of the Defendant, through an administrative litigation (Seoul High Court No. 2014Nu6069, Seoul Administrative Court No. 2012Gudan52678, hereinafter referred to as the “previous litigation”) regarding the “teach signboard escape certificate (L5-S1, hereinafter referred to as the “the instant different case”).

B. On August 26, 2015, the result of the physical examination conducted by the Central Veterans Hospital on August 26, 2015, there is no special opinion, such as a recurrence in comparison with the previous MRI (MRI, Nov. 12, 2015). However, since L4-5, the judgment below the classification standard was rendered as a result of the opinion, and on December 30, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the guidance for re-verification of the results of the physical examination (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) that the Plaintiff’s degree of disability was determined as an ineligible person for the application of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant case’s injury was subject to the opinion that the escape certificate was presented as a result of the special examination, and that the Plaintiff complained of at least a sense of reduction, pains, and radiations after the recurrence of the instant injury in 2005, and that the Plaintiff’s disability rating was higher than the result of the non-occupational examination. As such, the Defendant’s disposition that judged otherwise that the Plaintiff fell under class 7 6109 set forth in [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State was unlawful.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. (1) Basic facts (1) - Opinions on the appraisal of medical records in the previous litigation - The Plaintiff on December 30, 201.