1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The first instance court dismissed the part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant pertaining to the non-conformity of the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished service to the State, and cited the part pertaining to the non-conformity of the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation. Since the Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed against each part of the Plaintiff’s loss and the Plaintiff appealed from the trial, only the Defendant’s appeal remains due to the withdrawal of appeal at the trial, the scope of this court’s judgment is limited to the non

2. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for dismissal, addition, or deletion of a part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance added the so-called “influent training” in Part 6 and “training at poppy" in the part of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance by drawing a line in a vertical fashion and drawing the body and bridge.

The 3th sentence of the first instance court's decision "at the National Armed Forces Hospital" in the 11th to 12th sentence is regarded as "at the National Armed Forces Hospital".

It shall be deleted from the 5th sentence of the first instance court to the 12th sentence of the same party from the “person who has rendered distinguished services to the State” of the 8th sentence.

The 5th judgment of the first instance court deleted from the 17th "Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Law of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State" to the 6th "half".

Part VI through 7 of the decision of the first instance shall be deleted from 6th to 4th.

From 7th to 13th of the decision of the first instance is as follows.

[2] In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances revealed in light of the facts acknowledged earlier and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the Plaintiff did not have any record of receiving medical treatment in relation to the crux before entering the hospital, and received a decision on active duty service in the draft physical.