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 July 5, 1990, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from active service on June 18, 1992, and on September 28, 2001, “L4-5” was recognized as a wound related to official duties, but the Plaintiff was determined as falling short of the grading standard in a physical examination for a disability rating classification, and applied for a physical examination for re-verification on November 1, 201, and was subject to a disposition of determination” under class 7-6109 of the disability rating “7-109” on October 30, 2013.

B. Thereafter, on February 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration on the ground that “the existing conical signboard escape certificate (L4-5) contributed to inducing the change of the stimulity on the parts of the new conical signboard escape certificate (L3-4).” However, on April 28, 2016, the Plaintiff received a decision that the additional application for registration was rejected by the Defendant as a soldier or policeman wounded on duty and a soldier or policeman on duty.”

C. On March 6, 2017, when filing an application for a re-registration with the Defendant on the ground that “The Plaintiff applied for recognition of an additional superior position on the ground that it was recognized as additional wounds since the departure from a signboard escape certificate (L3-4, referred to as “the instant difference”) which caused the existing difference that occurred during military service,” the Plaintiff applied for recognition of an additional superior position. However, on August 18, 2017, the Defendant rendered “the instant disposition” to the Plaintiff.

D. On October 30, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, which was dissatisfied with the request, but the ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered on April 24, 2018. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 (each statement including the serial number, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s existing difference in the Plaintiff’s assertion was found to have a proximate causal relationship with the performance of military duties, and the Plaintiff’s doctor’s intention to reject the instant disposition was unlawful even if the previous difference revealed that the difference caused a certain portion of the difference in this case.

B. (1) Article 4(1) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State.