1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 21, 1984, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on August 14, 1985 by serving in the 11th Assistant Soldiers.

B. Around July 1984, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that the left-hand shoulder was broken out, but the Defendant rendered a decision on November 5, 2013 as to the Plaintiff’s failure to meet the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation.

C. Accordingly, on October 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking revocation of the above disposition (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Gudan10160), and received a judgment of winning part of the judgment that the pertinent decision was unlawful, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

Accordingly, the Defendant, upon the Plaintiff’s request, took a new measure that recognized the person eligible for veteran’s compensation for the following reasons: (a) the Defendant’s failure to meet the requirement of the person eligible for veteran’s compensation for the following reasons: (b) the lower part of the Defendant’s application: (c) the lower part of the lower part of the lower part, the lower part of the lower part of the lower part, the lower part of the lower part of the lower part, the lower part of the lower part of the lower part, and the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part; and (d) the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part.

E. After that, the Plaintiff received a new physical examination on March 10, 2015 for the determination of a disability rating for the instant injury, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was determined as “less the grade standard”, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the results of the physical examination on June 5, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion remains with a disability falling under Class 6(2) or 7 of the disability rating due to the instant disability, the Defendant determined the disability rating to be “under the disability rating” following a physical examination without objectivity, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. As to the instant difference, the Plaintiff rendered judgment.