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 May 5, 1952, the Plaintiff entered the Army and served as an observation soldier belonging to the Posium of the Posium of the Posium of the Posium of the Posium of the Posium of the Posium of the Posium of the Po

B. On November 4, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished service to the State on the ground that the Plaintiff was subject to the enemy’s attack during the Korean War and sustained salutism on each bridge while serving as an observation soldier. On November 4, 2013, the Plaintiff received a disposition to refuse to provide distinguished service to the State on the same ground, and again filed an application for registration with the Defendant on the same ground, but on June 23, 2014, received a disposition to refuse to provide distinguished service to the State on the same ground.

C. At around May 18, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Army Headquarters to conduct a review of major thought while suffering from the bombs on the outer and right bridge due to the enemy's attack on May 18, 1953, but on May 3, 2016, the Plaintiff received a non-major decision on May 19, 2016 on the ground that there was no record of injury-related injuries and no medical treatment, and received a decision on May 19, 2016 that the Plaintiff constitutes an official duty under attached Table 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Military Personnel Management Act on September 28, 2016.

Accordingly, on October 19, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that the Plaintiff participated in the Korean War and won the enemy’s attack and died on the e-mail and bridge by suffering from the e-mail and the e-mail on the e-mail and bridge, but the Defendant decided that the Plaintiff does not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On May 12, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but received a dismissal ruling on September 19, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through 6 (including the number of each class), Eul's evidence 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff.