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

A. On October 23, 2012, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was on duty as a driver in the B Transport Team. On June 25, 2013, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the National Armed Forces Water Service Hospital on the ground of an unidentified symptoms in detail. On August 26, 2013, the Plaintiff received a diagnosis of cardiopulmonatitis and beeche disease (medical certificate) from Samsung Seoul Hospital, and was discharged from military service on November 25, 2013.

B. On December 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on the grounds of the difference in “inception of cause” with the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs (e.g., inc., inc., inc., inc., inc., e., inc., inc., inc., inc., inc., inc., inc., inc., inc.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the above decision through an administrative appeal, and the first instance court rendered a judgment on November 30, 2016 that “the Plaintiff’s primary claim seeking the revocation of the non-applicable decision of the persons of distinguished services to the State is dismissed, and the disposition revoking the non-applicable decision of the persons of distinguished services to the State in preliminary order is revoked.”

Since then, the head of the Gyeonggi-do Veterans Branch of the above case appealed from the defendant Gyeonggi-do (Seoul High Court 2016Nu82647) on February 2, 2018, the appellate court rendered a judgment that "the plaintiff's in-depth infection is not an infectious infection, but an in-depth infection related to the beese disease, and it is difficult to find a proximate causal relationship with the military service due to satise diseases, not by infection, but by satise diseases, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff was unable to receive appropriate medical treatment and treatment, and that there is no evidence to prove that the difference in this case occurred or that the plaintiff was rapidly aggravated above the natural progress," and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2.