1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 9, 1982, the Plaintiff (BS) was appointed as Second Lieutenant at the Army on September 9, 1982, and was scheduled to do so on October 31, 2005.

Plaintiff

The certificate of military register is written concurrently by the plaintiff in information and communication.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the Defendant for veteran’s compensation with the purport that “the Plaintiff was performing surgery with frequent training in the field of field, e.g., the head of the Gu and the e.g., the military forces, while serving at the information company in 2003 and received active fluence diagnosis (hereinafter the instant award), and thereby received disability grade 6 as a result of the operation,” on the ground that “the Plaintiff was registered as a person of distinguished services to the State and received disability ratings.”

C. On February 18, 2019, following a resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered a decision on the amount of money equivalent to the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter the instant disposition) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “It is difficult to deem the instant difference was caused by the performance of military duties, such as sports activities and training, and there is no specific data that can be deemed that the instant difference was rapidly aggravated at a natural progress level because it was unable to receive adequate medical treatment due to military performance, and that it was not verified that there was no specific data that could be seen as significantly aggravated at a natural progress level.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was diagnosed as more than 40 years of age than 10 and the Plaintiff had served military service in the field unit, such as a special power plant, for more than 20 years, etc., the difference in the instant case was caused by the Plaintiff’s performance of duties, such as training, etc., during the military service, or resulted from the Plaintiff’s rapid aggravation of the age above the natural progress.

Therefore, the Plaintiff.