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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. On April 18, 197, the Plaintiff entered the Army and discharged the Plaintiff from military service on January 17, 1980.

나. 원고는 2015. 9. 9. ‘훈련소 4주차 실탄 사격훈련 중 첫발을 쏘는 순간 양쪽 귀에서 ’쩡' 하는 소리가 나며 충격을 받은 이후 양쪽 귀에 이명이 계속 들리기 시작하였고, 1979년 10월 수도기계화보병사단 포병대대 근무 당시 한미연합훈련에 참가하여 TOT사격(동시탄착사격)시 발생하는 엄청난 폭발음에 재차 귀에 충격을 받은 이후 청력이 급속도로 나빠지기 시작하였다

The application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State was different from the application for the Egyptism of the two sides, i.e., the Egyptism (hereinafter “instant wounds”).

C. On March 7, 2016, after deliberation and resolution by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the instant injury does not constitute the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State or persons eligible for veteran’s compensation, in light of the fact that specific and objective evidence to acknowledge that the instant injury occurred while serving in the military is not verified” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The difference in this case occurred after he was shocked to the noise generated at the time of the military training center in October 1979 and the noise generated at the time of the KOT shooting in the KOCO training at the time of the military training center in 1979. Thus, the difference in this case is likely to have a proximate causal relation with the military duty or education and training.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the instant wounds and the performance of military duties or education and training.