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

A. On April 17, 2001, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was on duty in the military, and was diagnosed as “Sari-Sari-gun” (hereinafter “instant wounds”) and discharged on July 12, 2003.

B. On December 4, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant on the ground that the instant wounds were different.

C. Accordingly, on March 18, 2016, the Defendant confirmed that “the Plaintiff’s additional note was spread by telegraph on March 16, 2003, which was the first diagnosis and non-explosion, and the extension organization examination conducted the last diagnosis and preservation of drugs-related Acts and subordinate statutes as a result of the extension organization examination on the ground that it was difficult to recognize the identity of a public official solely based on the fact that the Plaintiff received diagnosis and treatment during military service; ② there was no objective evidence to recognize that the instant injury occurred due to the performance of military service; ③ there was no accurate cause for the instant injury; ④ there was no medical basis to confirm the causal relationship; ④ there was no medical advice from the existing medical specialist, and ⑤ there was no objective material to recognize that the disease was caused rapidly above the nature of the military service; ⑤ there was no direct cause for the occurrence or aggravation of education and training or education or education of the State beyond the scope of the person who has rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that there was no direct cause or aggravation of education and training or education.”