1. The part concerning the conjunctive claim in the first instance judgment shall be revoked.

2. The Defendant limited to the Plaintiff on September 21, 2017.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 21, 1984, the Plaintiff entered the Army and completed military service on January 21, 1984, and was discharged from military service on May 1, 1986.

B. On February 26, 2010, the Plaintiff applied for the registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant on the ground that “the occurrence of interest and noise disorder in quantity due to military external attack” occurred, but the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement decided that the Plaintiff is a person who does not meet the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State in the 97th deliberation of 2010, it was dismissed by the Defendant.

C. On January 10, 2017, the Plaintiff again filed an application for re-registration with the Defendant to “Seong-Seong-Seong-Sengngng (hereinafter “instant wounds”) for the re-registration of persons of distinguished service to the State.”

On September 21, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the determination that there was a proximate causal relationship between the occurrence or aggravation of the instant wounds and the performance of military duties or education and training. Therefore, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the determination that the Plaintiff was ineligible for distinguished service to the State and the person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff sustained the instant wounds while continuing shooting training in the military forces. The Plaintiff constitutes a person of distinguished service to the State since it was wounded in the performance of duties or education and training directly related to national security, and even if not, constitutes a person eligible for veteran’s compensation. Nevertheless, the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that shooting training in the military forces cannot be deemed to have suffered the instant wounds, is unlawful. 2) There is no objective evidence to confirm that the instant difference occurred at the time close to the Defendant’s military service, and there is no assertion by the Plaintiff.