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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On June 23, 1981, the Plaintiff entered the Army and discharged the Plaintiff from active service on January 26, 1984.

B. On November 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration with the Defendant on November 27, 2015, with the purport that “The Plaintiff was suffering from wounding at night during the night-time training for a night-time place where he/she was serving in the military, by walking a re-registration from the watchkeeping C in the military as a shotch to a shot,” and applied for re-registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State.

C. On June 14, 2016, the Defendant recognized that the Plaintiff had a decline in returning to the right (hereinafter “the instant wound”), and issued a notice of decision to recognize the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc.”) to the effect that the instant wound fell under the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation under the Act on Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”), but did not fall under the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition on December 16, 2016, but was dismissed on March 21, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that he was admitted to the Army and was placed in the military unit located in Goyang-si and then received the same training in the mountain area in the Madju-si, Gwangju-si around November 1, 1982.

On the first day of the Eastern Training, the Plaintiff completed the guard duty at the place where he left with B, and returned to the late time, and the result was reported, while the worker on duty C was walking the king to the king, the Plaintiff suffered the difference in this case by walking the king from the worker on duty C to the king.

The difference in this case was incurred while serving on the boundary during the winter training, and it was directly related to the national defense security or the protection of the people's life property.