1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 28, 2012, the Plaintiff entered the Army on February 8, 2011, and was discharged from active service as a sick or wounded on June 22, 2012, and on June 28, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) on June 28, 2012, the Plaintiff was performing an operation for one Mad, among L4-5, L5-S1, the Plaintiff was performing an operation for one Mad from among L4-5, L5-S1; (b) according to the evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the performed part was determined as L5-S1; and (c) on the evidence No. 6, the records stating that “the records implementing an operation on L4-5 parts of L4-5 parts are confirmed as clerical errors; and (d) on the ground that there was a difference in the status of Mad-1, 2015, the Defendant suffered partial refusal of the Plaintiff’s application for registration of the State.”

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling citing the Plaintiff’s appeal on September 24, 2013 on the ground that “In addition to the ex-postpon escape certificate, the Emi-gun is also recognized as an official difference.”

B. On December 26, 2013, the Defendant issued a new physical examination for the classification of disability ratings to the Plaintiff, and on January 21, 2014, notified the Plaintiff of the fact that, as a result of conducting the physical examination, the continuous obscencies continue to exist due to the aggravation of the Escencies after the physical examination, the Defendant is determined as Grade 6-1(1)17 of the disability rating (hereinafter “the disability rating”) (hereinafter “the disability rating”).

Accordingly, the Plaintiff raised an objection on March 19, 2014, and the Defendant, on April 22, 2014, notified on May 12, 2014, to the effect that “the instant disposition is determined as identical to the existing one” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on February 24, 2015.