1. The Defendant’s refusal to register a person of distinguished service to the State against the Plaintiff on March 6, 2013, refers to both sides of patriarchism.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 14, 1979, the Plaintiff was born and was enlisted as a candidate for a military noncommissioned officer on February 14, 1979, and was retired from office as of April 30, 2012.

B. On August 31, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State to “Machine Machina” (hereinafter “Machina”).

(Application Form and Disposition of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State was made on the other hand, but the plaintiff's objection in this case is limited to the application form).

On March 6, 2013, the Defendant did not record the possibility that the Plaintiff was exposed to various noise in the daily life process unrelated to the military's official duty since March 21, 2012, and received treatment in connection with ear from a private hospital other than the record that was given four-day medical treatment due to an unknown full-time functional disorder. On August 25, 2010, the military hospital's medical record was judged as the first medical record on August 25, 2010. However, on the record, it was difficult to verify the specific occurrence circumstance where "the two sides name, hearing aid, 10 years for hearing aid, 50dB on the right side, and 50dB on the left-hand side" to verify the causal relationship with the military performance of official duty, and it cannot be excluded from the probability that the Plaintiff caused various noise in the process of daily life irrelevant to the military's official duty, and it is difficult to recognize the person eligible for veteran's compensation from the objective medical record or education and training data of this case."

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 4 evidence, Eul 1 to 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that most of the military service period of 33 years work on a vessel, while serving in a vessel.