1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s person eligible for veteran’s compensation against the Plaintiff on January 23, 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 26, 2011, the Plaintiff entered the Air Force, and was discharged from military service or on duty on December 25, 2013.

B. On April 3, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that he/she was suffering from a trajection in military service (hereinafter “instant wounds”).

C. On September 2, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition that constitutes a person of distinguished service to the State and a person eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that the proximate causal relationship between the instant wounds and the military performance cannot be found.

(hereinafter referred to as “non-applicable disposition of this case’s person of distinguished service to the State” and “non-applicable disposition of this case’s person of distinguished service to the State” and “each disposition of this case” are combined with the above two dispositions.

On March 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the appeal on July 21, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 7, and 12 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff asserted that there was no past record related to the instant difference, and that the Plaintiff entered the support stand in a state of health sufficient to receive class 1 in a physical examination, and was assigned to the Air Force B Airport, and performed the vehicle maintenance work.

The lack of maintenance disease in the above unit led to the increase of physical and mental stress in maintaining the mixed 20 vehicles, and the Plaintiff was diagnosed with regard to the instant difference due to the occurrence of the boom in October 2013.

Therefore, even if there is a proximate causal link between the instant wounds and the performance of military duties, the instant different dispositions made by the Defendant on a different premise are unlawful, as they were suffering from overwork, stress, etc. caused by military service or aggravated beyond nature.

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