1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 23, 2009, the Plaintiff entered the Army and transferred to the General Class VIII on July 31, 2009 and served as a communications soldier.

On April 22, 2011, the maturity was discharged.

B. On September 2009, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by the military hospital at a total of four times from October 6, 2009 to December 1, 2009 as a result of the shot-name video reading taken on the right side of November 10, 2009, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the shot-type shot-type shot-type stoke-type stoke-type stoke-type stoke-type stoke-type stoke-type stoke-type stoke-type stoke-type stoke.”

C. On December 11, 2009, the Plaintiff was issued a medical certificate stating that “On December 17, 2009, the Plaintiff was discharged from and returned to the right frame at the Yong-Nam University Hospital on December 17, 2009, and at the time, it is deemed that the level of three months after the surgery should take training.”

On February 7, 2014, the Plaintiff received the second surgery at the Yong-Namnam University Hospital, and on February 24, 2015, filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the basis of applying for “the first half of the first half of the first half of the year (hereinafter “the second half of the year”). The head of the Daegu Regional Veterans Administration, June 10, 2015, constitutes the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation under the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation. However, the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, and rendered a decision on the non-conformity of

The plaintiff appealed against the above disposition and filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the above claim on September 22, 2015.

E. Although the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the head of the Daegu District Court for the revocation of a decision on the eligibility of a person who rendered distinguished service to the State under the Daegu District Court Decision 2015Gudan2098, the said court is recognized as having caused the instant wounds while serving in the military, but it is stated that there was a pain prior to entering the right-hand knee in relation to the instant wounds.