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. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s death 1) Plaintiff’s ASEAN B (hereinafter “the deceased”).

On May 8, 2014, the deceased was on duty as an auxiliary police officer belonging to the Incheon Gyeyang Police Station. 2) On August 3, 2015, the deceased participated in the axis games implemented as a part of the lower field training on August 3, 2015, and was sent back to the hospital due to a lack of respiratory disorder, etc. on the same day. However, on the same day, at around 14:01 on the same day, the deceased died as a direct death, a multi-growth donation, which is an intermediate event.

B. On August 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the deceased and a person eligible for veteran’s compensation. 2) On November 10, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision with respect to the Plaintiff on the following grounds: “The deceased does not seem to have been dead as a direct cause for the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the national defense, etc., and it is deemed that the deceased’s non-performance of occupational duties or education and training seems to have deteriorated and have died as an existing disease,” and thus, it does not fall under the requirements for “the person who rendered distinguished services to the State” under Article 4(1)5 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”), but does not fall under the requirements for “the death and injury of a disaster”

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") only the non-applicable decision under the conditions of persons who died on duty under the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service.

On November 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition against the Defendant. However, on February 17, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the said objection for the same reason as before, and notified the Plaintiff on February 26, 2016.

On March 14, 2016, the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal and the decision of dismissal of the Central Administrative Appeals Commission.