2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On Apr. 25, 1965, when the Plaintiff was entering the Army on Nov. 23, 1964 and was serving in the Army, the Plaintiff was deprived of consciousness due to a liveral symptoms, such as a sudden marry, during the investigation at the Japanese hospital, and repeated treatment several times at a military hospital, and was discharged from military service on Aug. 31, 1966.

B. The Plaintiff complained of the fact that the Plaintiff was suffering from a loss and the outbreak after discharge, and that there was a cerebral disorder, and around 2006, the Plaintiff applied for registration of persons of distinguished services to the State under the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 11041, Sept. 15, 201; hereinafter “former Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”).

However, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision that the Plaintiff does not constitute a soldier or policeman on duty as stipulated in Article 4(1)6 of the former Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State according to the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans, which stated that the record of the Plaintiff’s treatment at a military hospital due to the climatic work, but there is no special record of occurrence related to the performance of official duties, and that the application is not recognized as a disease related to official duties

C. On November 7, 2011, the Plaintiff suffered from the superior soldiers in active duty and bullying without merit, and accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that there was a pre-explosion, left-hand sale, and the symptoms of leg mathy due to severe stress, and filed an application for registration of persons of distinguished service to the State with the difference in the application for registration as “pre-exploitation, pre-exploitation, left-hand sale, and bridge math (hereinafter “instant difference”).

However, the defendant does not confirm additional evidence or change of circumstances that could reverse the already deliberated and resolved contents, and recognizes the specific circumstances of the injury and the name of the injured and the name of the injured in relation to the official duties in addition to the record of the nursing record, and the objective proof materials are not confirmed, and thus, they are different in the course of performing official duties.