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 March 25, 1998, the Plaintiff joined the Marine Corps and discharged from military service on December 9, 1998.

B. On December 9, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that “Around April 1998, in the course of night training, the Plaintiff was faced with a serious impact on the left knee by running the running road along the decline, which was cut down,” and applied for re-registration of persons of distinguished service to the State on the ground of different applications for “the instant difference” (hereinafter “instant difference”).

The plaintiff applied for registration to the defendant around 2001, and the defendant made a decision that the case of this case meets the requirements for soldier or policeman on duty after deliberation by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement.

On February 27, 2007, the Plaintiff was judged as Grade 7 of the disability rating after the new, reexamination, and re-verification physical examination, but was judged as below the grade criteria as a result of the re-examination on November 19, 2012.

C. On May 19, 2014 after deliberation by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant does not constitute a soldier or policeman on duty under Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”), but does not constitute a soldier or policeman on duty under Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”).

(d) The Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Defendant, but was dismissed on December 1, 2014, and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on February 3, 2015, but was dismissed on July 7, 2015. [Grounds for Recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).

- The purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an educational and training team for the Marine Corps.