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

A. On November 7, 1984, the Plaintiff entered the army as a candidate for the Army Special Staff Officers in the Army, and was assigned to the special staff officers on April 27, 1985, and served in the unit 5602 unit of the 1st Military Special Staff Officers in the 19602 unit.

On August 31, 1986, he was discharged from military service.

B. On March 2, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) filed an application with the Defendant for the registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation by asserting that “The Plaintiff was killed and wounded during the training of each class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class; and

C. On August 26, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision to the Plaintiff on the purport that “this case’s injury was caused by an acute cause during the performance of military duties or education and training, and thus does not constitute the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State. However, it may be deemed that it may have aggravated beyond the natural progress speed based on the proximate causal relation with military duties or education and training, thereby satisfying the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). D. The portion of the non-conforming disposition of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State is “the instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection against the Defendant, but was dismissed on December 21, 2015. The Plaintiff again filed an appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, which was subject to the dismissal ruling on September 20, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered the 1st class judgment in the draft physical without any more than anything else before entering the Plaintiff’s entrance, and that the Plaintiff joined the 1st class judgment in the draft physical, while serving as a special staff officer in the course of education and training, such as each dogculation, urban obstacles training, and the required suppression training in the military unit, etc.