1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed on the part of the claim for revocation of the decision which is not equivalent to the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished service to

2...

1. The Plaintiff asserts that the first instance court’s determination on the claim for revocation of a non-existence of the requirements for a person who rendered distinguished service to the State was erroneous and that the Defendant only claimed revocation of a non-conformity of the requirements for a person who rendered distinguished service to the State on October 30, 2015, among the non-conformity of the requirements for a person who rendered distinguished service to the State, the first instance court claimed revocation of the Plaintiff’s claim in this case.

Therefore, the original purport of the complaint of this case submitted by the plaintiff is only stated in the claim for revocation of the decision corresponding to the requirements for a person eligible for veteran's compensation, and it is apparent that there was no procedure to modify the purport of the claim and the grounds for the claim, including the revocation of the decision corresponding to the requirements for a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State during the first instance trial. Accordingly, the plaintiff's appeal as to the part of the claim for revocation of the decision corresponding

2. The Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal as to this part of the judgment on the non-existence of a person eligible for veteran’s compensation did not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance trial, and even if the evidence submitted by the first instance court were to be examined by the respective statements in the evidence Nos. 25 through 32 (including the serial number) submitted by the court, the fact-finding and the determination by the first instance court are deemed legitimate.

Therefore, this court's explanation on the part of the claim for revocation of a person eligible for veteran's compensation is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this court's explanation is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

3. In conclusion, the Plaintiff’s appeal dismissed this part of the appeal, as it is unlawful to revoke the non-conformity of the requirements for a person who rendered distinguished services to the State. The Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the decision is dismissed as it is groundless.