1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the grounds for appeal is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part 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. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that: (a) the Plaintiff constitutes a person who has a functional disorder in the middle-level or the light-level functional disorder in the pipe section; (b) the Plaintiff constitutes a person who has a functional disorder in the middle-level or the light-level functional disorder in the pipe section; (c) the Plaintiff’s argument constitutes [Attachment 4] the ground that “the person who clearly shows a physical disorder in the EXE-ray, etc., regardless of appropriate treatment; (d)” among the obstacles in Article 8-3 [Attachment 7] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 984, Jun. 29, 2012; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule 4]; and (e) the Plaintiff is subject to Grade 6 or 7 of the disability rating, regardless of whether it has a functional disorder in the above case; and (e) the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. Article 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23885, Jun. 27, 2012) that applies to the instant disposition is to conduct physical examinations according to the previous provisions at the time of the enforcement of this Decree.