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 February 9, 2009, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on December 25, 2010 when serving as an operator of the Communications Headquarters of the Aviation Operation Headquarters.

B. On May 1, 2009, the Plaintiff was undergoing a vehicle maintenance training from a superior in the vehicle maintenance vehicle while serving in the military (hereinafter “instant accident”), and the Plaintiff was faced with the shoulderer on the left side of the oil tank, due to the accident where the oil tank parked in the nearby area was rapidly launched and the vehicle was forced to wear down on the left side of the oil tank (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On January 14, 2011, the Plaintiff, while serving in the military, filed an application for registration with the Defendant for the registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State by asserting that the instant accident occurred in the military, “The Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine,” but on August 23, 201, the Defendant rendered a decision on the non-conformity of the requirements for a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation (the first instance court: the Daegu District Court 201Gudan4454, the appellate court: the Daegu High Court 2012Nu2147) against the Defendant seeking the revocation of the above disposition, and as a result, the judgment revoking the instant portion of the non-specific disposition of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State among the pertinent non-specific decision-making dispositions became final and conclusive, on the ground that only the part of the “damage to the Megical Megical Megical Megical Megical Megical Megical Megings

E. On February 21, 2014, the Plaintiff received a physical examination to verify the degree of injury of the instant wounds, but was judged to fall short of the grade standards, and accordingly, the Defendant rendered a disposition to deny the registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on March 6, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1-3 evidence, Eul's 1-4 evidence, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful