1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 20, 2007, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was in service in the 56th C unit of the 22th rank C unit of the 22th rank C unit of the 26th rank C unit of the 2007 group, and was diagnosed by a general red lusium with the general red lusium of the unknown details in the 12 unit of the 2008 group. From December 15, 2008 to January 28, 2009, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the above hospital, and was discharged from military service on January 30, 2009.

B. On June 21, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that “In light of the shock training course around July 2008, rainwater and sand was fluence, and there was no shock blood after treatment at the National Armed Forces Chill Hospital, the face of which was hump and humped, and that the process of the general red brup rup, as a result of the examination and treatment of the National Armed Forces Water Service Hospital, was hump, and hospitalized treatment was conducted around October 2008,” on the ground that the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State, based on the overall red flusium (hereinafter “the instant wound”).

C. On October 26, 2011, the Defendant rendered a ruling that the Plaintiff does not meet the requirements for soldier or policeman on duty under Article 4(1)6 of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 11041, Sept. 15, 201; hereinafter “former Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”) on the ground that it is difficult for the Defendant to acknowledge proximate causal relation between the instant superior branch and the Plaintiff’s performance of official duty.

[The facts that there is no dispute over the basis for recognition, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 3, 4, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had been directly and continuously exposed to the out-of-the-counter vessels by frequently conducting outdoor activities in the same season during the military service while in the winter season, in the lower season, by means of fundamental training, dust construction, and dust, etc., and had much physical and mental stress while performing the GOP boundary service.

In addition, around June 30, 2008, the first symptoms of the injury and disease in this case, such as the CFK and FBS, were shown to the Plaintiff.