1. On January 23, 2014, the Defendant’s disposition of non-conformity of the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 3, 1954, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on October 15, 1958.

B. On June 25, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she left the left-hand side of the train due to an accident that goes beyond the dynamics while performing official duties, and filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground of the application for “the instant difference” (hereinafter “instant difference”).

C. On January 23, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-specific determination on the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant wound against the Plaintiff was not deemed to have proximate causal relation with the military performance of official duties, and that it constitutes a wound caused by gross negligence in operation without any inevitable reason.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. At the time of military service, the Plaintiff asserted that he was a military police officer, while performing his duties, and that on January 1, 1957, the left side of the ship was taken over on the east, and that he was faced with the difference in the instant case due to the damage of 1,2,3 satisfactions on the top of the wind that the train was fasted and arrived at the Masan Station in Busan for the purpose of controlling illegal forest products and patroling.

Therefore, even if there is a proximate causal relation between the instant wounds and the Gun, the instant disposition by the Defendant was unlawful on a different premise.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2, and Nos. 4 through 7, the plaintiff, who was in military service, has completed the performance of a tree on Jan. 27, 1957 and arrived at the Masan Station by using a train, thereby falling down from the train being driven.