1. On September 28, 2018, the Defendant partially recognized the part of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State to the left-hand side of the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 15, 200, the Plaintiff entered the Korea Army Academy at Armed Forces and served as an administrative officer on March 1, 2004 at the 103 Bovine Forces, the 23 Bovine Forces, the Army Administration Schools, the Armed Forces Daejeon Hospital, the Armed Forces Nursing Academy, etc., and was discharged from military service on February 28, 2010.

B. In relation to both sides, the Plaintiff applied for the shoulderes on both sides, and was subject to a disposition related thereto, but did not provide a separate explanation in relation thereto, since it is irrelevant to the issues of this case;

On January 17, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted to the Defendant that “the occurrence of noise, patrine ties, and elimism occurred on both sides due to military service,” and filed an application for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State.

On September 28, 2018, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff’s application was a soldier or policeman on duty with respect to “the name of earing in the opposite side, and on both sides,” but the records of the medical examination conducted by the military hospital and the private hospital (hereinafter “the instant case”). However, on November 2008, the records of the instant medical examination conducted by the private hospital were confirmed as 15.8dB under the 6th law, and around December 2009, considering the fact that the instant difference was confirmed as 21dB under the 6th law as a result of the inspection of sound records conducted by the private hospital and that it was confirmed as a normal hearing station in the current examination of force, it does not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State, and it does not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State.”

(B) [The facts that there is no dispute over the basis for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that there was no more than anything before entering the National Armed Forces. Around August 2000, the Plaintiff appeared to have any inconvenience on both sides after shooting training from among the military training courses, and was visiting the National Armed Forces Japan Hospital on August 16, 200 and received treatment. At the time, there was a little number of results of hearing and treatment.