1. On August 11, 2014, the Defendant’s decision that the Plaintiff was ineligible for veteran’s compensation is revoked.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 26, 199, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on March 25, 2001 while serving in the Gun.

B. On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on the basis of the Defendant’s application for “Sslovas No. Madle No. Madle

C. On January 23, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision with respect to the Plaintiff on January 23, 2014 that “the Plaintiff’s “instant injury” was caused and aggravated due to the repeated performance of duties, such as sports games and training, or due to considerable causal link with education and training. However, on the ground that it is not recognized as having been caused during the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the national defense, safety balance, etc., the Defendant did not fall under the requirements for the check of injury on the ground that it does not fall under the requirements for the check of injury on the ground that it is not recognized as having been caused during the performance of duties or education and training (hereinafter “instant Disposition 1”).

On February 4, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant. On April 28, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he/she would maintain the instant first disposition.

E. On August 11, 2014, the Defendant was notified by the Board of Patriots and Veterans of the fact that the instant difference falls short of the grading criteria, and rendered a decision on the non-conformity of the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant Disposition 2,” and collectively referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 11, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that ① the instant wound occurred during shooting training and shock training, or the symptoms of the wound have deteriorated, the first disposition denying it is unlawful, and ② the instant wound fell under class 7 and class 81222, which was judged to fall under the criteria for rating, and thus, the instant second disposition that was judged to fall short of the criteria for rating is also unlawful.

(b).