1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 1, 1982, the Plaintiff’s husband B entered the lower company, and served as C Staff Staff, D Staff Staff, E head, F, G, etc., and on September 1, 2006, the Plaintiff was promoted to the lower court on September 1, 2006, and the air force HH special flight flight team progress control officer, and there was symptoms that the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband would divide the kidbb training period and the horses into kidb training period on March 23, 2015.

B. On April 5, 2015, the Deceased was diagnosed as cerebral typosis at the National Armed Forces Waterworks Hospital on April 15, 2015, and was hospitalized in the Seoul Metropolitan Government Hospital on June 24, 2015, and died on July 3, 2015.

C. On July 29, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that the deceased constituted “the person who died on duty” under Article 4(1)5 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act”), but was notified on January 8, 2016 that the deceased did not meet the requirements for a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation. On February 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection and filed an objection on February 4, 2016, but was notified of non-conformity

On September 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State on the ground that the deceased constitutes a soldier or policeman who died on duty. However, on March 7, 2017, the Plaintiff was notified by the Defendant that he/she does not meet the requirements for a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On May 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal and filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed by the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on December 22,

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul's 1 through 4 (including the number of each issue) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the 1-day cerebral cerebral cerebral typhism occurred, and then 10% to 20% of the patients within 90 days, and 50% of the two are likely to occur within 48 hours.