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

A. On November 6, 1971, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on August 22, 1974.

B. On May 1972, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the Defendant on June 16, 2008, alleging that he was receiving medical treatment at the National Armed Forces Capital Hospital by suffering from kneee and knee injury during the regular reinforcement training, while serving in the military. However, on November 25, 2008, the Defendant rendered a decision non-conformity with the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State.

C. On November 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State by asserting that he/she sustained injuries on the knee and He/she was injured on the ground that he/she applied for the foregoing circumstances (hereinafter “other side of the bridges below, the lower side of the bridges, and damage to the bridges,” and re-application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State. However, on June 16, 2015, on the ground that there was no change of circumstances that could change the previous dispositions, such as not verifying objective data to prove proximate causal relation with the military performance of official duties, the Defendant rendered a non-conforming decision (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff suffered the difference in this case due to the accident of contact both kneek ground in the course of avoiding difficulties while conducting regular reinforcement training in the Haei Doneo Doo Doneo Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo-do, while serving in the first part of the first part of the first part of the first part of the 1st part of the 1972. Thus, the proximate causal relation between military performance and the difference in military duty is recognized. Thus, the disposition of this case

B. (1) In order to constitute “an injury during education and training or in the performance of duty (including illness in the line of duty)” under Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, there is a proximate causal relation between education and training, the performance of duty and injury or disease.