1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff entered the Army on September 4, 1965 and was discharged from office on April 6, 1968.

B. On November 7, 1967, while the Plaintiff was killed and wounded in the military service and was engaged in combat operations, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State by suffering injuries by attack, such as dyshot, etc., from the Franchise forces. The Defendant recognized that “the number of units of 4-5 units of malmar dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium d

C. After that, on May 2, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State who seeks a physical examination for re-verification on May 2, 2013, and was re-recognized by the Defendant as a wife for recognition of the “unfeasible and unfasible and unfasible and unfasible and unfasible and unfasible and unfasible and unfasible and unfasible and unfasible and unfasible and unfasible.” After the Defendant’s physical examination and determination of re-verification by the Central Veterans Hospital, the Defendant’s Board deliberated and resolved that “fasible and unfasible and unfasible and unfasible and unfasible and unfasible and unfasible and unfasible and unfasible and unfasible and unf

Accordingly, on February 20, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on February 20, 2014 that he fell under class 7 of the disability rating 4115 with respect to the above recognized family points.

(hereinafter "Disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists on the ground of recognition, Gap 1, 2, and Eul 1 through 5 respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff suffered injury to the left-hand side due to the Vietnam War at the time of the Vietnam War, and that the plaintiff did not grant a disability rating to the left-hand side even though the plaintiff suffered from the symptoms of susu, the plaintiff did not grant a disability rating to the left-hand side. In the case of 4,5 cases, the plaintiff suffered from repeated pain and limited exercise scope, and the plaintiff now suffers from the function disorder of the new system.