1. The Defendant’s disposition of non-approval of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State on April 10, 2014 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 1, 1994, the Plaintiff was appointed as a school officer, and was discharged from military service on June 30, 1996, while serving as an education officer, etc. in the Army Class B soldiers' team at the Army.

B. On August 18, 2004, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State by asserting that he/she had been diagnosed as “L4-5” (hereinafter “the instant wounds”) while transporting booms during the military service and transporting booms during the process of the event in the military. The Defendant recognized that the Plaintiff was a soldier or policeman on duty on January 6, 2005, but the result of the new physical examination conducted on May 23, 2005 and the result of the re-verification physical examination conducted on October 8, 2008 were determined to fall short of each grade standard.

C. After that, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-verification on October 30, 2013. Accordingly, on April 10, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition that constituted a person of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”) under Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State”), on the ground that the instant wounds were not recognized as arising from the State’s security or the performance of duties directly related to the protection of the people’s lives and property, and that they have deteriorated their natural progress or more during military duties or education and training unrelated thereto, the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2 (including paper numbers), Eul Nos. 1, 6, 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that he was on September 28, 1995 while serving in the military and transported gambling in order to return to a military unit after completing a preparatory assembly for the National Armed Forces Day from September 28, 1995.