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 June 8, 2004, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on June 7, 2006 by entering the Army and serving as a police officer.

B. While working for the police station as a police officer, the Plaintiff was provided with a pain, and was provided with medical treatment. Around 2006, the Plaintiff applied for the escape certificate Nos. 4-5 and No. 5-000 (hereinafter “the instant difference”) to the Defendant for the registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State. However, on December 8, 2006, the Plaintiff was determined below the criteria for disability rating as a result of the physical examination, and the Defendant was issued a disposition to refuse to provide distinguished services to the State against the Plaintiff. Around that time, the Defendant rendered the disposition to refuse to provide distinguished services to the State.

C. On November 23, 2015, the Plaintiff again rendered an application for registration to the Defendant. On January 20, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition that did not meet the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State on the ground that the instant wounds were incurred in performing duties not directly related to the national security of the State or the protection of people’s lives and property, but that they meet the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. After entering the military, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by the instant wound and received surgery at the police hospital, while serving in the police as a police police officer, and was given a medical treatment and surgery even after discharge.

The Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State in around 2006, but rejected the registration on the ground that he/she failed to meet the criteria for disability ratings, and subsequently filed an application for registration again on January 20, 2016, but was rejected on the ground that the instant wounds did not directly cause injury while performing his/her duties, and the instant disposition is inconsistent with the grounds for refusal of registration of a person of distinguished service to the State, and the Plaintiff is unlawful.