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

A. On October 8, 1959, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and was transferred on May 6, 1960 to the Army, and was hospitalized in the 10 Spane Station, and was discharged from military service on December 31, 1960, while being hospitalized in the 3Y, 59, and 63 Army Hospital.

B. On November 7, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter referred to as “person who rendered distinguished services to the State”) on the basis of the difference in application for “mental fission” (hereinafter referred to as “mental fission”).

C. On April 6, 2013, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement decided that the above application for registration did not have a proximate causal relationship between the instant wounds and the military performance of official duties, thereby not constituting a person who rendered distinguished services to the State and a person eligible for veteran’

Accordingly, on May 6, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision on the Plaintiff’s non-conformity of the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Around that time, the Plaintiff appealed, and submitted additional data, such as the Plaintiff’s written statement, exclusive order sheet, and beds, to the Defendant, and the Defendant again requested the Board of Patriots and Veterans to deliberate on the requirements pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulations on the Management of Veterans Affairs on May 28, 2013.

E. On August 21, 2013, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement rendered a decision on the foregoing objection in a manner that there is no proximate causal relationship between the instant wounds and the military performance of official duties, thereby making a decision on the eligibility of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State

Accordingly, on September 12, 2013, the Defendant rendered a guidance to the Plaintiff on the determination of non-specific requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant notification”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio of the decision to file an objection or the disposition of the notification.

An administrative disposition which is the object of an appeal litigation.