1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 5, 1977, the Plaintiff entered the Army and served in the B Military Service Corps at the Army, and was discharged from military service on August 28, 1980.

B. On October 11, 201, the Plaintiff received an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the Defendant on the ground that he/she suffered from different wounds, such as “Cropical transformation between the third balance of the land on the left side (e.g., defrising refluoring refluoring deflation and refluoring refluoring defluoring defluoring defluoring defluoring defluoring defluoring defluoring defluoring defluoring defluoring defluoring defluoring defluoring defluoring defluoring defluoring defluoral)” due to a work tool leading to the Plaintiff’s left-hand hand. However, on February 10, 2012, the Defendant rendered a non-applicable disposition against the Plaintiff as a person of distinguished services

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the above disposition (Seoul District Court 2012Gudan1513, Daegu High Court 2013Nu506, Supreme Court 2013Du18025, Supreme Court 2013Du18025) and won the case. The Defendant rendered a new disposition that recognized the instant difference as a soldier or policeman’s duty soldier or policeman’s duty.

After that, the Plaintiff received a new physical examination on March 21, 2014 in order to determine the disability rating of the instant injury, and received the same determination in a physical examination conducted on July 3, 2014.

E. Accordingly, on July 4, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disability rating judgment that notifies the Plaintiff of the results of the above physical examination (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion has a serious disability on the third left-hand balance and hand son due to the difference in this case.