1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On May 23, 2013, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s further recognition of major issues.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 11, 1993, the Plaintiff entered the army as a noncommissioned officer and was discharged from military service on September 10, 200, when serving in the former unit.

B. On February 9, 196, while maintaining the previous vehicle while serving in the military, the Plaintiff was killed in the floor and faced with the left head from the front vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and then was diagnosed by the Defendant as one of the following factors: “In the event there is a disease in the outer scarcity in the front of the instant accident, there is an obstacle to the eromatic eromatic erogate and the eromatic eromatic erogate in the middle of the instant accident, and the eromatic eromatic erogate was diagnosed by the Defendant as one of the persons serving distinguished service to the State on September 8, 2009.

After that, the Plaintiff was judged as Grade 7 of the disability rating with respect to the above existing injury and disease in a physical examination.

C. After that, on June 27, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for additional recognition of major injury with the name of the injury, on the grounds that the instant injury occurred separately from the instant injury, and the symptoms, such as this name and depression, and making it difficult to live a normal life due to the occurrence of the damage to the Cheongsung, etc., (hereinafter “instant injury”), but on May 23, 2013, the Defendant did not recognize the causal link between the occurrence or aggravation of the instant injury and the military performance of official duties against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the causal link between the occurrence or aggravation of the instant injury and the occurrence of the injury were not recognized.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 7, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 4, 7, Eul evidence 10-1, Eul evidence 12-1, Eul evidence 13, 14, 18, 19, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is due to shock caused by the instant accident, and the franchising of the franchisium flows down, and the lugal damage occurred rapidly, and around 2009, the lugal damage occurred.