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

A. On April 2, 2012, the Plaintiff (B) entered the Air Force and discharged the Plaintiff from active service on April 5, 2013.

B. On July 16, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State with the purport that “the Plaintiff sustained an injury that the left-hand side was increased among the Do roads in the military service on July 16, 2012, and thereafter, on September 2012 and December 2012, 2012, while conducting euperal training for the preparation of the Military Diplomatic Association, the Plaintiff caused a severe pain, and the left-hand slots and the left-hand slots and the left-hand slots of anti-monthlys (hereinafter “after the operation”).”

C. On February 4, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision on the Plaintiff on February 4, 2014 that the instant wound did not constitute a causal relationship with the military performance of official duties, and thus, rendered a decision on the eligibility of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State and a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On May 1, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit and filed an appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on May 1, 2014, but the said commission dismissed the said claim on October 8, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) On July 2012, while serving in the military, the Plaintiff sustained the instant wounds due to the military contests and various training or other operations on September 2012 and December 2012.

2) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff passed a physical examination without any further reason before entering the military, and completed a vocational training normally, even if the Plaintiff got knee-free treatment, this is merely a light kne-free one, even if knee-free one has entered the military. In light of the fact that the kne-free one is not a different difference that may naturally occur due to the fact that kne-free one’s natural progress, the Plaintiff prepared various trainings after entering the military, especially kne-kne-free one’s conference, and there is no particular reason to deem that the Plaintiff sustained the instant difference due to any other reason, the instant difference has aggravated its degree of difference beyond the natural progress due to the performance of military duties

3) Therefore, there is a proximate causal relationship between the instant difference and the Plaintiff’s performance of official duties. Therefore, the instant disposition on a different premise should be revoked as unlawful.

(b) Markets:

1) In order to fall under Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc.”) and Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, there should be a proximate causal relation between the performance of duties, education and training, injury or disease, or the occurrence or aggravation of the injury or disease, and the fact that there is a proximate causal relation should be proved by the party asserting it.

2) According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the plaintiff entered the military and served as the preliminary team education and training and distribution soldiers of the Air Force Article 27. The plaintiff was judged to be the left-hand slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive sl.

However, the aforementioned evidence and evidence No. 6-1 and No. 6-2 comprehensively considered the overall purport of the oral proceedings, namely, the following facts: (a) According to the open medical records of the Air Force Education Headquarters, the Plaintiff received medical treatment on July 6, 2012, rather than knee-free knee-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-hwan

Judges Kim Gin-young