1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 12, 1952 during the Korean War, B, the spouse of the Plaintiff, entered the Army, and died on March 12, 1986 on the following day: (a) around March 12, 1953, after having entered the army, entered the army in the Geumcheon District as “the joints of the front and rears of the front and the fronts of the fronts of the fronts of the fronts of the fronts of the fronts of the fronts of the fronts of the fronts of the fronts of the fronts of the fronts of the fronts of the fronts of the fronts of the fronts of the fronts of the fronts

(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). B

On January 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant regarding the instant wound of the Deceased, and the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement deliberated and resolved on August 31, 2015 on the deceased as a person who meets the requirements of Article 4 (1) 4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc.”)

C. On October 8, 2015, the Daejeon Veterans Hospital implemented a documentary examination of extra-class and physical examinations to determine the deceased’s disability rating, but it presented objective data incomplete, and the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement decided on November 25, 2015 as “Class 7 4115” (Article 415) prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State (Article 3) based on the relevant data and the results of the written physical examination and the results of the Veterans Veterans Council. Accordingly, on December 8, 2015, the Defendant determined the deceased’s disability rating as Grade 7 4115 (Article 7 415) to the Plaintiff on December 8, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 7 (including paper numbers, each entry of Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 2, 9, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that he was killed in the instant wound and was awarded to the wounded, and was discharged from active service. The Deceased was discharged from active service, and the Defendant was unable to use his left hand properly due to the instant wound more than 7 cm away from the right arms and was unable to use his left hand.