1. The decision that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on November 9, 201 to satisfy the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State shall be revoked.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On February 25, 2011, the Plaintiff entered the Army as B, with the age of 19 on August 24, 2010, and served as a five-year-old nuclear power unit C, the 5-year-old nuclear power unit C, and was discharged from military service on February 25, 201, when he/she entered the Army as the five-year-old nuclear power unit B, and served as the five-year-old nuclear power unit C, the 113-mechanic nuclear power unit C, “brate separation certificate, brate brate bombombing surgery upon diagnosis,” and thereafter hospitalized in the Armed Forces of the Armed Forces as of July 28, 2011, and was discharged from military service on August 31, 2011.

B. On September 14, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State with the Defendant on the ground that “The Plaintiff was diagnosed as Huuri-ri during the early construction of the first place of military service on October 15, 2010, and was diagnosed as Huuri-ri and tension at the Armed Forces Hospital, and was used as vertebrate separation certificate on November 25, 2010 (hereinafter “the instant wound”) on the ground that the Plaintiff participated in a harsh training for the patrolman on January 25, 2011 and was used in spine separation certificate was aggravated, so the instant wound was caused and aggravated due to the performance of military duties or education and training (hereinafter “performance of duties”).

C. On November 9, 201, following the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the determination on the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) on the ground that “The instant difference is judged as a congenital or qualitative disease due to physical and structural defects owned by the Plaintiff, and there is no objective proof that proximate causal relation with the occurrence or aggravation of the pertinent disease and the official duties is not recognized to have occurred due to lack of objective proof to confirm the causal relation with the occurrence or aggravation of the pertinent disease.”

On January 6, 2012, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission.