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.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff was discharged from military service on December 11, 1996 while serving at the Army around November 3, 1994, and was discharged from military service on December 11, 1996.

B. On January 28, 2002, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State with respect to the nuclear escape certificate (L4-5) in the above indictment, on the ground that: (a) on October 28, 2002, the Defendant had been diagnosed as a nuclear escape certificate (L4-5) as a result of around August 1996, the symptoms have deteriorated as a result of the Plaintiff’s luscing and repair work around 1995, which he had been serving in the military; and (b) on the ground that he had been diagnosed as a luscopic scopic scopty

As a result, on April 26, 2002, the Plaintiff recognized the nuclear escape certificate (L4-5) (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”) required at the meetings of the 31 Merit Reward Judgment Committee on April 26, 2002 as an official wound related to official duties. However, on June 4, 2002, the Plaintiff was determined as “in short of the standards for classification” in a physical examination for disability classification conducted at the Gwangju Veterans Hospital and dismissed the application for registration of persons of distinguished service to the State.

C. On December 10, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration to the Defendant again, following the deliberation of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, and on April 23, 2013, the Defendant issued a physical examination result notice to the Plaintiff to determine a disability rating on the ground that “The instant injury and disease was verified with no trauma without any trauma, and was performed 12 days after the discharge of military service, it does not constitute a person of distinguished service to the State under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State”). However, there is a proximate causal link between the occurrence of the injury and the performance of military duties or education and training of the person of distinguished service to the State, and thus, it is recognized that there is a difference in performing official duties under the Act on Support for Persons of Distinguished Service to the State.”

After that, the defendant on June 21, 2013, and on June 21, 2013, the plaintiff was at Grade 7, 6109.