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 December 30, 1970, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on November 8, 1973, and was dispatched to Vietnam from June 3, 1972 to February 7, 1973.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant of distinguished service to the State, alleging that the Plaintiff was exposed to the right-hand ear and the left-hand ear during his service in Vietnam Wars and caused a defect in hearing (hereinafter “instant disability”).

On January 19, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the above application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the causal relationship between the instant wound and the performance of official duties is not recognized.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not have a problem before entering the Plaintiff, but was exposed to the instant accident due to repeated shooting training in Vietnam, gambling shooting, lighting shots, etc., and caused the difference in the Plaintiff. Thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that there was no proximate causal relation between the instant wound and the performance of official duties is unlawful.

B. (1) “A soldier or policeman wounded in the course of education and training or performance of duty (including illness in the line of duty)” referred to in Article 4(1)6 of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 11041, Sept. 15, 201) refers to a soldier or policeman who sustained an injury or disease in the course of education and training or performance of duty.

Therefore, in order to be the difference between the above provisions, there should be a proximate causal relationship between the education and training or the performance of duties and the injury or disease, and the causal relationship between the duty, etc. and the injury or disease should be proved by the party asserting it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du5617, Sept. 23, 2003). (2) Doctrine and evidence No. 11 are as follows.