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 27, 1978, the Plaintiff entered the Army and applied for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State on July 26, 1979. On April 24, 2007, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that he/she applied for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that he/she met the requirements of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State. On July 16, 2008 and July 21, 2010, the Plaintiff applied for re-registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that he/she would not meet the requirements of a person who

B. On February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for re-registration of the person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that “The Plaintiff, while serving in the military as a superior unit C in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, was deprived of her amb, etc. during his military service, and applied for re-registration of the person of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “the instant difference”).

C. On August 24, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision to the Plaintiff on August 24, 2015, on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff sustained the instant wounds in connection with the performance of official duties in the military (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on January 22, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff had a disability as a horse, so he was examined about the conscription of defense soldiers who were living with being exempted from military service, after being informed of the military service, and was examined. As a result, the plaintiff was enlisted in the office in accordance with the guidance of the Dong office that he was able to see and see because she could have been admitted to the office once, and talked about it. As such, since she started to be subjected to a non-discrimination guard, she was called as a superior unit after the company assignment, and she was forced to undergo several times of a 8-month bridge, etc. other than the normal situation.