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

A. On August 28, 1952, Non-party B, the husband of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the deceased”), was discharged from military service by entering the military on August 28, 1952, and was discharged from military service on May 30, 1953.

B. On December 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant for distinguished service to the State of the Deceased, alleging that the Deceased suffered visual images with shotology in the Korean War 625, and that he/she applied for registration of the deceased’s distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “instant wounds”).

C. On May 16, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision on May 16, 2016 against the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Deceased was fluorized in both sides and YYA, but the records of credit cannot be confirmed, and the disease caused by the above wound is not a disease caused by the wound,” which constitutes a non-conformity of the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the deceased and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation.”

(hereinafter referred to as "the Disposition in this case". 【No ground for recognition' exists, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not have any impediment to snow before entering the army, but was suffering from emultan’s physical wound while participating in battles after entering the army, and thereafter caused scopic disorder. Therefore, the instant accident occurred by the images that occurred during battles, or caused stress or nutritional shortage due to fear of war during war, and thus, there is a proximate causal relation with military service. However, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

B. In full view of the purport of the written evidence No. 2 and the purport of the argument, the deceased diagnosed “Yando-si,” and “Yando-si,” while serving in the military, and appealed to the military officers at the time of entering the military, but it is recognized that the deceased asserted the military force and YY-si, and on the other hand, it is acknowledged that the evidence No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5 were comprehensively taken into account in the written evidence No. 4 and No. 5.