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. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 26, 1997, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on December 25, 2001 by serving in the C Special Brigade.

B. On October 19, 2007, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant on the basis of “damage to the upper half of the left half and the first half of the year,” etc. In response, the Defendant recognized on April 4, 2008 that “the front half of the year, the first half of the year, the first half of the year, the first half of the year, the first half of the year, the first half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second half of the year, the second

C. On June 3, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation for re-registration to verify the instant wounds, etc. with the Defendant as the applicant for re-registration. Accordingly, on August 19, 2013, the Defendant rendered a non-recognition of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State, on the ground that the instant wounds occurred while he/she had been engaged in a axis, which was not directly related to national defense and security or to the protection of people’s lives and property. However, the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for persons eligible

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). D.

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal on November 12, 2013, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on February 25, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. On April 17, 2001, the Plaintiff asserted that he was affected by the enemy’s satisfy infiltration during the period of Daejeon WT (Amy Tring) training. The Plaintiff sustained the difference between the two parties to the instant case in order to escape from the satfy.

Therefore, the difference in this case is directly related to the protection and security of the state or the protection of the lives and property of the people.