1. On June 22, 2012, the Defendant’s disposition of falling short of the grade criteria against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 10, 2010, the Plaintiff entered the Army and transferred to supplemental service on February 19, 201, and was discharged from military service on October 12, 201.

B. On April 201, the Plaintiff, as a public service personnel, filed an application for the registration of a person of distinguished services to the State with the Defendant on January 12, 2012, for the following reasons: (a) on the ground that the Plaintiff suffered from the wounds in the part of the anti-presidential part of the slots in the emergency rescue service; (b) the non-presidential part of the anti-presidential part of the slots in the emergency of the sleak (sleak), the slots in the emergency of the sleak (sleak); (c) the anti-presidential part of the sleaks in the emergency of the sleaks; and (d) the sleaks in the emergency of the sle

C. Around April 10, 2012, the Defendant recognized the instant wound as wounded during the performance of official duties, and conducted a physical examination on the disability rating classification for the Plaintiff on two occasions on May 7, 2012 (new) and June 21, 2012 (Review). On June 22, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition below the rating standard (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the effect that the degree of the instant wound to the Plaintiff falls short of the criteria for the determination of disability rating stipulated in the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion falls under class 7 of grade 8122 of the disability rating, as a person whose instability due to damage to the sleaks is at least 10 meters due to the sleaks.

Under a different premise, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Medical opinion 1: (a) medical opinion - The diagnosis report dated June 4, 2012 between the Mannam University Hospital Hospital and B - The inspector’s opinion and the content of the post-explosion disorder: there is a deep plesy in the rear side of the Masro, and slots were able to engage in 0-120 Provincial movement, and was re-influences using the same kind of product; (b) but there is a balance between the front bank and the inner instability. There is a metal or yarn inserted in the event of re-fluence on towing radiation; and (c) approximately KRW 7 meters in the front direction and approximately 3 meters in the front direction.