1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On March 5, 2004, the Plaintiff entered the Gun and discharged on June 4, 2004, and filed an application for registration of persons of distinguished service to the State with the Defendant on November 24, 2008, 2008, alleging that “the head was severely faced with the head on January 21, 2008 due to the sudden turning of the lebane during the lebane operation.”

B. On the ground that the Defendant was deemed to have been the above wounds, but there was no objective proof data to verify the treatment records and the circumstances of injury at the time of injury, and thus, made a decision corresponding to the person of distinguished service

C. On February 26, 2014, the Plaintiff suffered from the Defendant’s injury to a special public official test and training in astronomical Mari-gun, in particular, lebane-type escape symptoms (C5-6), c4-5, c4-5, L5-S1, and an injury to the inner part while going beyond the scope of his/her operations in lebane-type.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant difference”) and filed an application for re-registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State.

On December 9, 2014, the Defendant issued a notification that it does not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”), on the ground that, although the instant difference is recognized as having been suffering, there is no objective evidence to prove that the instant difference occurred in relation to military duties, the Defendant did not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State.

E. On January 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on August 4, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 7-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 20, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that he had been serving in military service, but did not have any special conditions after the abortion on December 8, 2004, but went through without any special treatment while being treated by himself, and even after being treated again in the city of Yari-ri-gun on October 2006, the plaintiff was under temporary treatment at his own stage.