1. On January 28, 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 February 8, 2001, the Plaintiff entered the Army on February 8, 2001, and served as piping and boilers from the sixth Sick Forces, and was discharged from military service on April 7, 2003.

B. On September 6, 2013, the Plaintiff received diagnosis as “mal disorder” during the military service and received hospitalized treatment three times at a military hospital, and received diagnosis as early November 3, 2003 (hereinafter “instant wound”), and claimed that the instant wound was caused by military service, and filed an application for registration with the Defendant on September 6, 2013.

C. On January 28, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision that the instant wound against the Plaintiff did not constitute the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State or persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that it is not recognized that the instant wound was caused or aggravated due to the performance of duties or education and training during military service (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's No. 1, 2, 4, 6 (including virtual numbers), Eul's evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff entered the Gun without any particular problems due to mental disorder. The remaining soldiers were subject to severe bodily harm and cruel acts on the ground that they did not properly control the remaining soldiers due to their lack of proper response to the plaintiff's instructions. During this process, the plaintiff suffered extreme mental stress, and caused the difference in this case, such as depression, depression, depression, and evasion of personal relations. Therefore, the difference in this case is recognized as proximate causal relation with the military service while performing their duties or training.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful on a different premise.

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

C. Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (i.e., the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State) constitutes “persons of distinguished service.”