The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

On September 12, 2014, the defendant decided that the plaintiff constitutes a non-requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State.

1. Facts that there is no dispute over the details of the disposition (based on recognition), Gap 1, 2, 4, 2, 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. On July 1, 2012, the Plaintiff entered the 33th unit of the 7th Army Specialization Team in the Army, and was discharged from military service on September 30, 2013.

B. From April 22, 2013 to May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State on April 28, 2014, alleging that the Plaintiff sustained an injury of the “horizontal signboard escape certificate” due to shock arising from ground landing when an officer special field training was conducted (hereinafter “instant training”).

C. On September 12, 2014, the Defendant: (a) did not recognize that the Plaintiff’s forecast escape certificate (including Plaintiff’s scambling, transiting, scambling, and scambling, scaming, and scambling; hereinafter “the instant injury” was a direct cause for the military duties or education and training directly related to national defense and security; or that the injury incurred in the performance of duties or education and training directly related to national security and security was caused as a direct cause; and (b) did not fall under the requirements for soldiers and police officers, but falls under the requirements for persons and police officers, on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s repeated military duties or education and training, etc. are deemed to have deteriorated at a natural progress beyond the speed of progress, and thus constitutes a soldier and police officer, etc.” (hereinafter “disposition of this case”); (c) made a decision corresponding to those requirements for persons and police officers’ compensation.

The defendant's notification reached the plaintiff around that time.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) during the instant training from April 22, 2013 to May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff suffered from the injury of conical signboards escape certificates due to shock due to the ground infiltration training, going through the airspace above the heat apparatus, and going on, and strong, falling under the instant training; and (b) the instant injury and disease suffered by the Plaintiff was the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, which is below the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment