1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Among the instant lawsuits, requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. (1) On January 28, 1987, when the Plaintiff was in office as a police official, at around 03:00, when he was in office as a person of distinguished service to the State, the Plaintiff was dispatched to the site on January 28, 1987, and scambling two scamblings (two scambingscamblings) above the ice board, and received scambling treatment. On February 26, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that on the part of the Defendant, six scamblings, including two scambing cuts and four scamblings additionally damaged in the process of performing official duties, and filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State. (2) After deliberation by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, on May 4, 2010, the Defendant first fell under the full requirements of “mick scambing” of a person of distinguished service to the State.

3) The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against each of the above dispositions, but was dismissed, and the administrative litigation also rejected, and the judgment against the Plaintiff was rendered final and conclusive on the ground that there was no causal link with the performance of official duties with respect to damage of four sons other than the upper part of the upper part, which was already recognized as having been on duty ( Daejeon District Court Decision 2010Gudan2031, Daejeon High Court 201Nu1908, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Du11331, August 16, 2017). The Plaintiff requested a new trial on the ground that “Although the Defendant had to determine the injury rating including the injury rating due to the aftermath, according to the relevant laws and regulations, it was erroneous in the deliberation and resolution only two sons of the Plaintiff, and omitted the remaining son, and that the judgment subject to a new trial was erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts.” However, the Plaintiff’s judgment on November 23, 2017, including the judgment subject to new trial, was rendered explicitly in the judgment.