1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On March 5, 1996, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on July 24, 1996 by entering the military on March 5, 199.

B. On June 1, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that mental illness has been caused or deteriorated due to military training, in particular, shock training, commander, and pressure of appointed soldiers, etc., during military service. On June 1, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation. However, on October 30, 2015, the Defendant issued a notice of “decision on the non-conformity of the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State” (hereinafter “decision on non-conformity of the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On November 23, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection on the ground that he did not examine important evidentiary materials, such as the beds and land, but the Defendant rendered a notice of the result of re-deliberation of the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on March 7, 2016.

On September 6, 2016, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is illegal;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that mental illness occurred due to stress caused by harsh acts, such as a sacrificing and a bathing of a commander and an appointed soldier at all times after he was placed as the top unit of the Western cable, in which the escape of the North Korean military force on April 22, 1996 exists. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion constitutes a military person, police officer, or military person defined in Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation (hereinafter "Act on Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation").

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

(c).