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

A. The plaintiff entered the Army on June 11, 1990 and was discharged from military service on December 10, 1992.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished service to the State with the assertion that “(i) the person provided assistance to the State around October 1992 was incurred due to a serious excess,” but (ii) the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision that it does not constitute the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished service to the State on January 2009 and January 201, 201, on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not have any objective supporting material to confirm any wound other than the Plaintiff’s statement.”

C. On December 17, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) around December 17, 2012, hereinafter referred to as “in the instant case where the Plaintiff’s application for an “hychopathy” was the same

(3) On June 7, 2013, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State. The purport of the entirety of the pleadings and arguments by the Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that he was physically healthy. On September 192, 192, the plaintiff had been suffering until now since 17:30, a field that was located in the private sector around the military unit, a dry field that was filled in to spawn the ground and opened up the soil from around 17:30, a dry field used to spawn the ground, and the spawn was finished, and the spawn was sent back to spawn immediately from among meals, and the spawn was sent back to spawn immediately after 2 months after the spawn was not completely cured, while the spawn spawn remains without completely treating the spawn spawn.

In light of the Plaintiff’s aforementioned different developments, the statement, treatment process, and physical assessment result, etc., the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State on the grounds that there is insufficient objective evidence to prove the fact that there was a proximate causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s performance of duties and the instant difference.