1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The reasons for this court's acceptance of the judgment of the first instance are as follows, except for the addition of "2. Additional Judgment" as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or adds to this court, and therefore, it shall be cited pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Whether the determination of the disability rating on the protruding of a protruding signboard No. 4-5 of the Additional Decision No. 4-5 of the 4-5 of the 4-5 of the 4-5 of the 4-5 of the 4-5 of the 8-3 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State

B.2) The phrase “A”’s “special inspection (CT and MRI) opinion” has a significant recurrence, and where there are self-proof symptoms, such as a sense of senscence, a summary, and a radiation outlet, and where there are training dogs through an in-depth test, it shall be recognized as Grade 7 of the disability rating.

“The degree of disability” argues that this part of the wound falls under class 7 of the disability rating, but it was found that the disability rating was calculated by omitting it.

B. (2) According to the provisions of subparagraph (A), in order to determine a disability rating by applying the above provision, the following must first meet the requirements: “Where it is difficult to expect a treatment effect even through an operation, etc., regardless of all treatment, including an operation, for the escape certificate.”

Among the injuries of this case, the escape certificate No. 4-5 of the Happed 4-5 was given all medical treatment including the surgery as above.

With regard to the fact that it is difficult to expect treatment effects even through surgery, etc., the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

The plaintiff's disability rating is illegal according to the plaintiff's chest-gu movement scope. According to the plaintiff's chest-gu movement scope, the plaintiff's disability rating is strong or bended with the whole spin, and the third grade 83 or neologicality of 3.