1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the conjunctive claim shall be revoked.

The defendant limited to the plaintiff on November 30, 2017.

1. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 1, and there is no counter-proof.

On February 15, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “instant wounds”) on the following grounds: “The Plaintiff was suffering from a large number of appointed soldiers who were in military service due to brain damage in a group in 1981, and received treatment due to brain damage.” As such, the Plaintiff was in a state of difficulty in normal life due to verbal disorder and walking disorder up to the present.”

B. On November 30, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition against the Plaintiff that did not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State or persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) on the ground that “The time of the occurrence of the instant accident is 23:50 on June 5, 1981, and the time of occurrence is at least 23:50 on the ground of drinking conditions, and considering that the instant accident is not deemed to have been caused by private activities unrelated to the performance of military duties, and thus, the instant accident is not deemed to have been caused or aggravated due to the cause of military duties or education and training.”

C. The statutes related to each disposition of this case are as shown in the attached Form “related Acts and subordinate statutes.”

2. The difference in the Plaintiff’s assertion occurred when the Plaintiff was on active duty in the military, and unilaterally was on active duty from the elected person B. Thus, the Plaintiff constitutes a person of distinguished service to the State under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “the Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State”), and even if not, constitutes a person eligible for veteran’s compensation under the Act on the Support for Persons, etc. Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter

Nevertheless, the defendant considers that the plaintiff does not constitute a person of distinguished service to the State or a person eligible for veteran's compensation.