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 August 4, 1973, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on June 8, 1976 at the 222 Military Service Corps of the 26th Military Service Corps.

B. On January 22, 2003, the Plaintiff discharged from active service, applied for a person of distinguished service to the Defendant for “high blood pressure, chronic kidney functional disorder, ventilation, and ventilation infection,” but was determined as meeting the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State on May 30, 2003, and applied for a re-registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on application of the same difference as before May 28, 2007. However, on November 1, 2007, the Plaintiff was determined as meeting the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State.

C. On April 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration with the Defendant for the instant difference, asserting that “the instant difference was suffering from chronic kidy diseases, pains, etc. at present due to the aftermath of the instant difference,” while performing military service. D.

On October 22, 2013, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application by determining that the Plaintiff does not constitute a person eligible for veteran’s compensation under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”) and the Act on the Support for Persons of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support for Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”), on the ground that there was no medical evidence that the Plaintiff treated a new functional disease due to the combination of the instant wounds, and there was no evidence to prove that the disease, such as chronic disability, currently suffering from the instant wounds, was caused by post-treatment

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). 【The ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that he/she is currently serving in the military around 1973.