1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders revocation below, shall be revoked.

Defendant.

1. The plaintiff is around the defendant in the scope of adjudication

The court of first instance rejected all the plaintiff's primary and preliminary claims. The court of first instance claimed revocation of the pertinent disposition against the person eligible for veteran's compensation and sought revocation of the pertinent disposition against the person eligible for veteran's compensation.

Therefore, since the plaintiff appealed only to the preliminary claim, only the above preliminary claim is subject to the judgment of this court.

2. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 27, 2015, the Plaintiff discharged the Plaintiff from active service on January 14, 2016 as an injury or injury on duty.

B. On July 15, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State and a person eligible for veterans, on the ground that “from August 27, 2015, the Plaintiff was undergoing basic military education and training at the Army Training Center, and was enrolled in the new education and training course at the Education Center of the Specialized Police Center in Gwangju from September 24, 2015, and was receiving treatment at the D Hospital and the Police Hospital around October 6, 2015, and received treatment at the E Hospital on November 14, 2015,” on the ground that “A person of distinguished service to the State and was receiving kneeless surgery after being diagnosed as the disease “the disease of this case”).

C. Accordingly, on September 27, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the deliberation by the Veterans' Review Committee was passed that it does not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and Eul evidence 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff alleged that he was damaged by traffic accidents around March 2008, which were all admitted to the plaintiff, to the right-hand knee-prone-prone-prone, but was treated to the extent that it does not interfere with daily life.