1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 22, 1994, the Plaintiff was discharged from active service by November 28, 1996 when he was discharged from active service as an auxiliary police officer.

B. On August 30, 2003, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State. On April 13, 2004, the Defendant’s Merit Reward Judgment Committee recognized that “a person had been injured during performing official duties”, but there was no record of being treated for only three months in the case of “a person suffering from adaptation,” but there was no record of confirming the outbreak circumstance and the relationship between official duties, and the head of the king’s non-standing organization’s medical opinion, and accordingly, notified the Plaintiff of the disposition on the above matters to be deliberated upon (hereinafter “the disposition of 2004”). On January 7, 2011, the Plaintiff determined that there was no additional proximate causal relation between the government and the State of distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State”) on the ground that there was a difference between the Plaintiff and the State of distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State”).

On November 25, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking revocation of the disposition in 2011 (Seoul District Court Decision 2011Gudan2215, hereinafter “related administrative litigation”) with the head of the Dong-gu branch of the Government Veterans Organization. On November 25, 2013, the said court rendered a ruling that the Plaintiff’s “declimatic stress disorder, chronic stress disorder, reaction depression” was caused by the Plaintiff’s education and training or performance of duty as a combat police, and rendered a ruling revoking the disposition in 2011. Although the said ruling was appealed by the said administrative agency (Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu32733, October 17, 2014). The said ruling became final and conclusive.

E. The defendant has a result of the relevant administrative litigation.