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 February 27, 1968 and is serving military service.

A person who was discharged from military service on February 28, 1971 is a person discharged from military service.

B. On October 10, 2017, the Plaintiff, while serving in the military, filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State, etc. on the part of the Defendant. On February 1, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on whether the aforementioned wounds constitute the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation.

C. On April 9, 2018, based on the results of the physical examination conducted by the Central Veterans Hospital, the Defendant rendered a decision on whether the Plaintiff was exempt from the registration of a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”), on the ground that the Plaintiff’s above wounds fall short of the criteria for disability rating prescribed by the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation.

【Unsatisfyal grounds for recognition】Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Waste tuberculosis that occurred to the Plaintiff while serving in the Plaintiff’s alleged military service and subsequent legacy therefrom constitute a disability rating standard prescribed by the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation.

Therefore, the instant disposition issued on a different premise should be revoked as it is unlawful.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. Determination 1) The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is that the Plaintiff’s pulmonary Tuberculosis is subject to the criteria for determining the degree of injury (hereinafter “instant disability rating criteria”) for the injury of each physical parts as stipulated in Article 8-3 [Attachment IV] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Honorable Treatment

(2) Rather, in light of the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of a request for physical examination to the Chief of the Seoul National University Hospital, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the said request has been satisfied, and there is no other evidence to support this.