1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 7, 2014, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on October 6, 2015, and filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on October 8, 2015, asserting that he/she was injured on the left side by exceeding the floor of the Presidential Security Service in the operational zone. As to this, the Defendant rendered a decision on December 22, 2015 as to “the instant wounds” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant wounds”), which constitutes the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on December 22, 2015.

B. On January 27, 2016, the Plaintiff undergone a physical examination to determine the degree of disability of the instant wound, and on July 8, 2016, the Defendant determined that the degree of disability of the Plaintiff falls short of the degree of disability.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s difference in the Plaintiff’s assertion is serious in its degree, and the instant disposition that falls short of the grading standards is unlawful.

B. The applicant for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State bears the burden of proving that he/she suffered wounds in the performance of judgment and the degree of physical disability is higher than that prescribed by law.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Du26589 Decided August 22, 2013). According to the result of the physical examination of the president of the Gannam University Hospital in this case, it can be acknowledged that, although the Plaintiff restricted the exercise scope of the elbow joints due to the instant wounds, the Plaintiff’s active exercise scope is limited to the sum of 235 degrees, the passive exercise scope is limited to the sum of 300 degrees, which is less than 1/4 of 310 degrees, and thus, it can be recognized that there was a medical opinion suggesting that all the flusive and passive exercise scope is less than 1/4 of 310 degrees.

In light of the above facts of recognition, only the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and Eul evidence No. 4 are the plaintiff due to the difference in this case.