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 November 1, 2008, the Plaintiff served as a bachelor’s officer officer on 52 occasions, and was discharged from military service on October 31, 201.

B. On May 3, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) filed an application with the Defendant for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State, asserting that “Inception, scarcity, scarcity, scarcity, and scarcity,” with the Defendant, “Inception, scarcity, scarcity, and scarcity,” following the type of the event held by the head of the Jind branch under the supervision of the commander on January 1, 2011, was injured on the left-hand side during the course of returning to the military unit; (b) on August 8, 2011, the Kindic Hospital did not show any pain; but (c) at the Kindic Hospital, the Plaintiff carried out scarcity and removal on the left-hand side; (d) however, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “instant wounds”).

C. On October 24, 2012, the Defendant: (a) rendered the Plaintiff on October 24, 2012, on the ground that “the instant disposition is not equivalent to the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State (military forces on official duty)” on the ground that “the conditions for persons who rendered distinguished services to the Plaintiff are confirmed prior to the date of injury, the medical records were confirmed prior to the date of injury, there were no opinions on the transfer of the building at the time of an operation, and considering the medical opinions related to glass, etc.

D) The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on August 13, 2013, but the said claim was dismissed on the ground that there was no dispute (based on recognition), Gap evidence 16, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 4 (each of the entries, including the serial number, and the purport of the entire pleadings).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not have received medical treatment on the left-hand shots before the entrance. After entering the bar, the Plaintiff was injured on the left-hand shots from the truck during the work of loading and unloading ammunition on January 18, 2010. On January 1, 201, the Plaintiff was injured on the left-hand shots from the ice shots while returning to the front left-hand shots.

As a result, the plaintiff is placed in the title of "the plaintiff."