1. A person of distinguished service to the State who rendered distinguished service to the Plaintiff on March 14, 2013 upon a claim for a change in exchange at the trial.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 20, 2011, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from the military service on June 13, 2012, under the diagnosis of “Banart Disease, damage, and credit” in the sixth Team B, etc., and was discharged from the military service on June 2012.

B. On September 14, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State, on the ground that “The Plaintiff applied for the following: (a) Madle Madle Madle Madle Madle Madle Madle, Madle Madle Madle Madle Madle,

C. On March 14, 2013, following the deliberation of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation with the military performance of official duties, and thus, the Defendant rendered a decision on the eligibility of a person who rendered distinguished services to

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of evidence Nos. 5, 6, 15, and 18, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition was lawful was the Plaintiff’s treatment “the salt pans and tensions of a shoulder,” and the Plaintiff was admitted to a first class enlistment decision in active duty service. On July 6, 201, in the course of a new path training, the Plaintiff received unreasonable PRI training (PR) on the right shoulder during the course of a new path training, and continued training after undergoing only formal treatment without undergoing a proper inspection conducted at a military hospital.

After moving into the Republic of Korea on October 4, 201, the Plaintiff was able to undergo a surgery at a private hospital in the Republic of Korea on October 4, 201. However, the Plaintiff was forced to immediately discharge the Plaintiff to return to the Republic of Korea only four days after the surgery. After that, the Plaintiff was unable to undergo appropriate medical treatment and management during the military service, which led to the aggravation of the symptoms, thereby undergoing a surgery twice again.

The difference between the plaintiff and the above is to protect the national defense and security, or to protect the lives and property of the people.