1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On April 8, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and was discharged from military service on December 30, 2014 (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) with the maturity of the disposition.

On May 23, 2014, the Plaintiff suffered a serious pain on the right shoulder during the complete military training for the head of the Gun, and as a result of the examination at the National Armed Forces Water Service Hospital, the examination conducted a diagnosis of the “defral damage” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant injury”).

On February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State. On August 4, 2015, the Plaintiff was determined to meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State.

On September 2, 2015, the Defendant conducted a physical examination at the Central Veterans Hospital on September 2, 2015, and was presented opinions on the disability rating No. 7-4115 due to the shoulder pain and physical disorder.

On June 15, 2016, around May 2016, the Board of Patriots and Veterans deliberated and decided that the injury in the instant case falls short of the grading criteria as normal results of the inspection of the entire course of the central veterans hospital around May 2016. Accordingly, on July 1, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on the following (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) that the degree of physical sacrifice does not fall under the criteria for disability classification prescribed in the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), and that the degree of physical sacrifice does not fall under the criteria for disability classification prescribed in the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal, but it was dismissed on November 15, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is currently difficult for the Plaintiff to write this paper with the right shoulder, which is a part of the instant wound, and is therefore, attached Table 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, and attached Table 7-415 of the Enforcement Rule 4.