1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the contents as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Details to be added; and

A. The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court is 2.C.

In other words, the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of this case”) shall add the following to the end of the phrase “whether the requirements for the legacy of this case are satisfied.”

(2) The prior meaning of “reexploitation” as prescribed in attached Table 48.b. 2(a) refers to the “re-exploiti South Korea,” and the attached Table 48.b. 2(b) of the Enforcement Rule of this case provides that “if a post-exploitation continues to be performed despite all treatment, including surgery, it shall be determined according to the relevant post-expiticism: Provided, That where it is deemed difficult to expect treatment even through surgery, a disability rating may be determined according to the post-expiticism,” taking into account the following:

2) A) In principle, in order to determine a disability rating, a person shall undergo all medical treatment, including a blood transfusion surgery. However, it seems that requiring a person to undergo all medical treatment, including an operation, even in the case of another person after the person was treated with such treatment, may be of no doubt to require the person to undergo all medical treatment, including an operation, even in the case of another person after the person was treated with such treatment. With respect to a case where symptoms are not "reexploited," not "reexploited

2) Since the provisions of other provisions stipulate a disability rating according to the degree of symptoms separately aggravated, there is no reason to support the fact that the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements prescribed in other provisions. In addition, Article 4-8.b.1 of the Enforcement Rule of this case provides that "protruding escape certificate" shall be medical.