1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be acknowledged by the statements in Gap evidence 2, 3, 4-1, 2, and 5-7. A

On December 24, 2007, the Plaintiff entered the Gun and was treated as a habitor for the right sprink during the training of hydrospopic sprinks on January 24, 2008. On October 15, 2009, the Plaintiff was treated as a spopic sponsor for the right sponsor, while working in the Western Police Station B. On October 15, 2009, the Plaintiff was treated as a spopic sponsor for the right sponsor (hereinafter in this case).

B. On September 23, 2011, the Defendant determined that the instant wounds constituted the requirements for persons of distinguished services to the State, deeming that there exists a proximate causal relationship with the wounds during official duties.

C. On October 25, 2011, the Plaintiff received a physical examination of the instant wounds, but was determined below the grade criteria.

On December 26, 2011, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with this, and received a physical examination again on December 26, 201, but was judged to have failed to meet the grading standards like the previous physical examination.

On January 13, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision that the Plaintiff constitutes a non-eligible person subject to the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. Since the physical area of Dog-gu, which is a part of the Plaintiff’s assertion of this case, falls short of 1/4 of the total active area of ordinary people, the Plaintiff’s wound of this case constitutes class 7 of the disability rating pursuant to Article 14(3) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, and Article 8-3 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (a person who has a function disorder in one of the three major sections of one arms).

Therefore, the difference in this case is under the premise of disability rating.