1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On December 26, 2012, the Defendant pertaining to the injury by Han River and the loss of hearing against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff was appointed as a police officer on April 3, 1974 and retired on April 4, 1979.

B. On June 25, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) completed the Presidential Security Guard on October 26, 1975, and (b) applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the Defendant for the “An accident involving a police truck that gets on board (hereinafter “instant accident”); and (c) the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State for the “an accident involving the front cover of the instant accident” (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

C. On December 26, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-specific determination on the requirements of a person of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “A reasonable causal link with the performance of official duties with the applicant branch is difficult to be recognized” (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition, and on March 19, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the determination on the non-conformity of the requirements for a person who rendered distinguished services to the State.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 25, Gap evidence 26-1, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he was injured in the course of performing duties related to the Presidential security on October 26, 1975 due to the instant accident that occurred while carrying out the duties related to the security and guard of the President, and that the Plaintiff was forced to return to the Plaintiff due to concerns that the chief of police station, who was a superior officer, would be reprimanded if he did not receive medical treatment at the police hospital at the time.

Therefore, even if there is a proximate causal relation with the police officer's performance of duties, the instant disposition, which was made on a different premise, should be revoked as unlawful.

B. It is as stated in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

C. On April 3, 1974, the Plaintiff was a policeman.