1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff was admitted to the Army Training Center on September 14, 1981 and was assigned to the Army Training Center on September 18, 1981 and was discharged from the hospital on March 11, 1982.

B. On October 9, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant, claiming that the occurrence of sound and mental fissionism occurred in relation to official duties while in military service, based on the sound and mental fission type and mental fission certificate, and subsequently, on March 19, 2013, the Plaintiff was recognized as an official duty requirement at the 63rd meeting of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement on the left-hand side of the Republic of Korea on March 19, 2013 (hereinafter “instant recognition award”), and registered as a person of distinguished service to the State on May 22, 2013.

C. Thereafter, on July 10, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for recognition of additional sources of occupational fissions (hereinafter “the instant injury”). However, on October 21, 2013 following the deliberation of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of a decision not to recognize additional sources of occupational injury on the ground that “In the case of the Plaintiff as a disease caused by congenital and toxic factors, most of congenital diseases were caused, and there is no special trauma, such as double damage related to official duties, and the Plaintiff is confirmed normally in the two parts of radioactive examination; and it is confirmed that there is no objective proof to deem that the Plaintiff had been suffering from physical or mental stress environment in which the Plaintiff had performed the said first application compared to other dynamics, or because there is no objective evidence to prove that there was no proximate causal causal relation between the instant different disease and the performance of official duties.”

(hereinafter referred to as "the Disposition in this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case does not dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 4-6, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is immediately after admission to the training center.