1. On January 10, 2014, the part of the decision that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on January 10, 2014 pertaining to the shoulder.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 14, 1968, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was dispatched to Vietnam from June 28, 1970 to June 20, 1971, and was discharged from Vietnam on October 21, 1971, and was subject to an accident during the Vietnam War operations (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. In 2011, the Plaintiff applied for the registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on his/her face to the left shoulder, left shoulder, left bridge, and Dol, and was determined to be class VII as a result of the physical examination by being recognized as a soldier or policeman on duty as a soldier or policeman on duty.

C. On October 4, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of additional status with respect to “a shoulder, knee, and bridge bridges (hereinafter this case’s additional shopping mall).” On January 10, 2014, the Defendant rendered a non-applicable decision with respect to the Plaintiff on the ground that there was no supporting document verifying that the instant additional shopping mall was in the course of performing duties or education and training, in addition to the Plaintiff’s statement, there was no supporting document verifying that the additional shopping mall was in the course of performing duties or training (hereinafter the instant disposition).

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal on February 19, 2014, but was dismissed on July 1, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, Eul 1, Eul 2, 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was forced to discharge his wife under the commercial instruction even though he suffered serious injuries from the left shoulder to the bend part of his arms and legs due to the accident of this case that occurred in the Vietnam War in the course of performing his duties, and was unable to receive medical treatment due to economic reasons after returning to Korea.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff’s additional interest in the instant case occurred during the performance of duties or education and training as a soldier, the instant disposition made on different premise is unlawful.

B. The plaintiff was hospitalized in the Vietnam War Hospital on November 10, 1970 due to the accident of this case at the time of the Vietnam War, and only the plaintiff's recognition status is stated in the register of the patients of the above hospital prepared at that time.