1. The Defendant’s disposition that constituted a person of distinguished service to the State on June 25, 2015 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 1, 1994, the Plaintiff entered the Air Force on February 1, 1994, but was discharged from the service on December 31, 1997. On May 29, 2013, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by a chronic dysium (hereinafter referred to as the “the instant upper dys”).

B. (1) On May 29, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant wounds were caused by military service, and applied for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State or persons eligible for veteran’s compensation. (2) As to this, on June 25, 2015, the Defendant directly caused the instant wounds to the Plaintiff during the Plaintiff’s military service.

A person of distinguished service to the State or a person eligible for veteran's compensation was determined (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case") on the ground that it is difficult to view that he or she has deteriorated nature

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. As to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he was placed in the Air Force after entering the Air Force, thereby helping the Plaintiff attach films to the radioactive rays (X-ray) at the time of non-destructive testing, or controlling others’ access in the vicinity at the time of radiation investigation.

The plaintiff performed his duties without wearing necessary equipment, such as film distribution area, and due to exposure to a large quantity of radiation, the plaintiff suffered the difference in this case.

The above duties performed by the Plaintiff constitute performance of duties or education and training directly related to the protection of the State, etc. due to the maintenance of munitions, such as equipment, materials, etc., and the difference in this case constitutes the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State since the aforementioned performance of duties

Therefore, the part of the disposition of this case which constitutes the requirement for a person of distinguished service is illegal as it is based on wrong facts.

B. Facts of recognition 1) The plaintiff was placed in the air force on February 1, 1994 and the same year after the plaintiff entered the air force.

4. From 23. 23. C flight group (on the port D flight group).