1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of disposition;

A. On March 12, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the Army on June 13, 2011 and transferred to the Army on March 12, 2013, filed an application for distinguished service to the State with the Defendant on March 22, 2013, alleging that “In the process of leaving a hydrogen in the Seosan Training Center, the Plaintiff left the right shoulder, thereby suffering from a difference in the field before the right shoulder and in order.”

B. On June 25, 2013, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement decided that the Plaintiff’s right shouldered to the right (hereinafter “instant wounds”) constituted a soldier or policeman wounded on duty. Accordingly, on July 18, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff constitutes a person of distinguished service to the State.

C. After conducting the physical examination of the plaintiff, the defendant judged on October 29, 2013 that the degree of physical disability falls short of the grading standards.

Then, on January 15, 2014, the Defendant, upon the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination, issued a decision on the non-eligible persons of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”), on the ground that “the evidence and function limitation on the person who rendered distinguished service to the State exists, but does not meet the criteria for disability rating” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On November 25, 2011, the Plaintiff’s assertion was conducted to restore the parts of the instant wound, and thereafter completed military service with the Plaintiff’s intent to refer to the Plaintiff’s certificate, even though it fell under class IV of the illness and physical water supply. However, even after discharge, there was a habitive tool to the extent that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to lead a daily life due to severe fishing pains.

Therefore, although the degree of disability of the plaintiff falls under class 7, the defendant's disposition of this case, which judged below the grade standard, is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

C. 1) Determination 1) - The place where the Plaintiff’s physical examination results with respect to the Plaintiff - The rupture movement should not be carried out, and the hump and hump mats will not be carried out. The operation is performed at the Armed Forces Cyun Hospital ( September 201).