1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. The Defendant rendered distinguished services to the Plaintiff on September 14, 2017.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 12, 1976, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from active service on August 14, 1979.

B. On May 2017, the Plaintiff asserted to the Defendant that “Around November 1, 1976, after entering the military, she was faced with ear, son, and scambling the head of the military base on the ground of the establishment of the military base while undergoing shooting training. As a result, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the schools, etc. after the 59th dispatch hospital, the Armed Forces Hospital, etc., but she left the military base after the king.” The Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State.

(c)

On September 14, 2017, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State of the Republic of Korea without accepting the Plaintiff’s application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State of the disaster on the ground that “the Plaintiff was judged to have suffered from an accident or accident during his/her duty or education and training, and thus constitutes the requirements for the State’s meritorious service,” except in the case of the wound where the diagnosis and treatment records are not confirmed in the relevant materials for the reason that they do not have been verified (hereinafter “the Defendant’s rejection disposition of registration of a person of distinguished service to the State”). However, the Defendant issued a disposition to recognize the Plaintiff as the person of distinguished service to the State of the disaster under the Act on the Support for Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Although the defendant appealed against this and filed an administrative adjudication, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the above claim on February 6, 2018.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 10, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful.