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

A. On April 9, 1998, the Plaintiff entered the Army and discharged from military service on August 16, 1999.

B. On October 29, 200, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the Defendant. The Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement deliberated and decided that the Plaintiff was injured by nuclear escape (L4-5, L5-S1) during military service. However, the Plaintiff was unable to be registered as a person of distinguished service to the State after receiving a determination that the Plaintiff failed to meet the criteria for disability ratings in a new physical examination or re-verification physical examination conducted thereafter.

C. On the other hand, on August 21, 2014, the Plaintiff again filed an application with the Defendant for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that “protruding Up (L5-S1)” (L4-5) was different from the application.

As a result of the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the defendant did not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State (L4-5) or for persons eligible for veteran's compensation (disaster injured) among the plaintiff's wounds in this case. However, the record that the escape certificate (L5-S1) was realized without an external wound immediately after entering the bar and the record that the performance of duties or education and training, such as national security, etc., was directly caused by the national defense and safety, is not verified. However, it is determined that the progress has deteriorated due to military duties or education and training, which are not directly related to national defense security, etc. and are not directly related to national defense and security, and thus, it does not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State (military person injured in the line of duty) and did not meet the requirements for persons eligible for veteran's compensation (persons injured in the line of duty)

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”) (hereinafter “Disposition in this case”) is without dispute; Gap evidence 1 to 3; Eul evidence 1; and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was beyond the training course conducted in the training center.