2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On November 13, 1985, the Plaintiff asserted that he was discharged from military service on May 26, 1988, and that on December 26, 2006, the Defendant had been living in an inferior environment in the military service and caused a astronomical consciousness in the military, and filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State.

B. Accordingly, on January 22, 2007, the Defendant did not recognize the Plaintiff as a skilled soldier’s disease on the ground that it is difficult to deem that there was a person who would particularly deteriorate the natural environment and the military service environment compared to the natural environment and the residential environment, and made a decision on the amount corresponding to the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter the instant disposition).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Party’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case, which did not recognize it as an official duty, is unlawful, although he was exposed to the GOP boundary service in writing, and he was living in the door room that was not well ventilated while heating due to oil distress. However, while the defendant asserts that the causal relation between the agency and the military service cannot be recognized, the disposition of this case is legitimate.

B. Determination

In light of the purport of the argument as a result of physical examination of the Army Head of this Court* Bournal of the Army Head of this Court, the plaintiff had been under normal conditions, including X-ray's results in physical examination. The plaintiff completed basic military training for 6 weeks and placed 00 Woogs on December 31, 1985, and entered 1, 8,000 GG 1,000 GG 8,000 GGG 1,000 to GG 8,000, 1,0000 GG 1,000, and 7,00000 GG 1,000. The plaintiff was under 7,000 GG 1,000,0000 GG 1,000, and 7,0000 GG 1,000,000.

In addition to the fact that the plaintiff's working environment, living environment, outbreak time, and the cause of an anti-Japanese outbreak, which can be known in the above recognition facts, seems to lack the ability of the plaintiff prior to entering the plaintiff, it is reasonable to view that the division of the wife of this case, which did not recognize it as an official duty, is unlawful, for the following reasons: (a) the plaintiff did not properly attract the plaintiff, and lived together with more than 40 persons who live in the house with one year, and (b) 1 year in the house where he did not leave the house due to oil accident; and (c) the movement of the engine was caused by being exposed to the air during the summer season, and thereby, caused the occurrence of a astronomical erosion of the engine or the aggravation of the natural progress at least.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.