1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. On April 10, 1951, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and was discharged from military service on March 1, 1959 on the part of the two-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the part of the combat on the part of the two-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on June 29, 1953, for the following reasons: “The failure in the function of the shoulderline on the part of the fleet, the failure in the performance of the shoulder pipe, the slifs and the snifs and the failure to assign (12cc)” (hereinafter “the instant difference”).

B. On October 7, 2013, the Plaintiff was recognized as a person of distinguished service to the State, and registered as a class 3 of the person of distinguished service to the State. On November 6, 2008, the Plaintiff was judged as class 3, 503 in a physical examination for disability ratings, and applied for a re-examination to the Defendant on October 7, 201

C. In accordance with the physical examination conducted on October 29, 2013, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on March 3, 2014, as to the “Obstruction of Functions of the Sponsorging Class 6-2 and 7123 as to the “Obstruction of Functions of the Sponsorging Class 6-2, 712 as to the “Obstruction of the Sponsorging Class 5-812 as to the “Inssorging and the sorging position”, and the “Insorging the 12cm (12cm)” as to the “Insorging the 6-8201 as to the “Inssorging

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 4-1 to 9, Evidence No. 5, 6, and 21, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was based not only on the determination of erroneous disability rating concerning the instant difference, but also on the basis of the determination of erroneous disability rating, and it was unlawful since the Plaintiff’s claim was not based on the reflection of the harm, such as the negola of the left-

In full view of this, the Plaintiff is highly likely to have a high level of functional disorder among two parts of the three parts of the arms (class 5, class 7114), among those who have a high level of functional disorder (class 3, class 4109) in the face of the left-hand bridge, or those who are unable to engage in their work during their life due to a functional disorder in the new system (class 3, class 4110), those who have a high level of functional disorder (class 714), one part among the three parts of the arms of which the area of the complete lectures or movement function is limited to not less than 3/4.