1. The Defendant’s disposition of refusal to render distinguished services to the State against the Plaintiff on November 13, 2013 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 10, 201, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and was discharged from the Republic of Korea on July 9, 2013.

B. On July 23, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State and a person eligible for veteran’s compensation with his/her disc as an applicant.

C. On October 28, 2013, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement rendered a decision on October 28, 2013 that “In light of the fact that the medical records related to the pre-qualification for the Plaintiff did not have been verified as a result of an inquiry into the health insurance, and that the medical records related to the pre-qualification for the Plaintiff occurred without any special credit records related to the official duties at the time one year and two months have passed after entering the bar, it shall not be determined that the protruding escape certificate L5-S1 (hereinafter “instant wounds”) was directly caused by an obvious external wound that was incurred in the course of performing duties or education and training, or that the disease was aggravated due to an acute aggravation of the natural progress due to repeated performance of duties or education and training.” However, since it is determined that the occurrence or aggravation (referring to a sudden aggravation of the natural progress) of the relevant disease under [Attachment Table 1] 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (referring to a person who died

On November 13, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision that the instant wound to the Plaintiff does not meet the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). (e)

On February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission for a ruling on the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the decision on June 24, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is honorable with respect to persons of distinguished service to the State.