1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with the purport of Gap evidence No. 1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 1 (including the number when it is not indicated specially; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the entire pleadings, and there is no counter-proof.

On April 30, 1962, the Plaintiff entered the Army and discharged from military service by sources on October 31, 1972, and on July 10, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “instant wounds”) to the Defendant.

B. On November 6, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant wounds were not recognized to have been caused or aggravated due to military duties or education and training (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) and that a person who rendered distinguished services to the State does not meet the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

2. The Plaintiff asserted that there was no physical injury including the instant wounded parts. From entering the military and around 1969, the Plaintiff died at the scene of the on-site death of 2 soldiers due to an accident of explosion of mines during the installation of a bombane around 1969, and the Plaintiff who was at a distance of 15 to 20 meters from the explosion site was suffering from the injury caused by shock caused by the accident.

The plaintiff did not receive proper treatment and returned early to the Republic of Korea on May 29, 1970, after having been suffering from the Vietnam War, due to noise, such as sadden due to combat equipment, etc., which led to the aggravation of symptoms due to the aggravation of ear, etc.

Since November 30, 1998, the plaintiff did not receive proper treatment due to the difficulties of living, the plaintiff was diagnosed with the wound of this case from November 30, 1998, but the symptoms have continuously deteriorated, and is in a state of defect-4 in the defect of hearing disability.

Therefore, even though the difference between the plaintiff and the defendant was obvious that it occurred or aggravated due to the performance of military duty, the defendant is between the two different cases and the military duty.