1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff entered the Army on November 17, 1981 and was discharged from military service on May 31, 1984.

On January 19, 1983, the Plaintiff received the relevant decision on the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State (military person on duty) by filing an application for re-verification of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on June 25, 2015, with regard to the difference in the name of the coordinates, knife, knife, chronological mar, knife, knife, knife, and knife knife knife

On January 28, 2016, the defendant conducted a physical examination for re-verification at the Central Veterans Hospital, and all of the wounds are presented.

On May 30, 2016, the Board of Patriots and Veterans has deliberated and decided that each wound falls short of the grading criteria. Accordingly, on June 13, 2016, the defendant issued a notice to the plaintiff on June 13, 2016 that the physical degree of the body of the national veterans hospital's physical examination results and the review results of the Board of Patriots and Veterans are below the disability rating criteria under Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") (hereinafter referred to as the "Disposition in this case").

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal, but it was dismissed on November 15, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 9, 12, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that, among the recognized injuries, the Plaintiff received a letter of appraisal that it constitutes class 7 of the person of distinguished service to the State under the Act on the Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, in the litigation for revocation of the decision on allowance corresponding to the person of distinguished service to the State (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Gudan53219) as the previous litigation (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Gudan53219).

The plaintiff's infertility and interest are the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State.