1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff was discharged from military service on April 30, 1970 after the plaintiff entered the Air Force on May 28, 1955 and was discharged from military service on April 30, 1970.

On June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) while working in the military with the Defendant while serving in the military; (b) while staying in the snow, the Plaintiff sustained the “real name in the left,” and (c) applied for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State.

(hereinafter “Application for Registration of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State of this case”). On December 8, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision on the eligibility of persons of distinguished service to the State and persons of distinguished service to the State on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between military duties, education and training and real names

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Eul evidence No. 6-9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff, as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit, asserts that the lawsuit in this case was a military service and that there was a “comfort disorder” in the military service, and sought the revocation of the disposition in this case.

The subject matter of a lawsuit seeking revocation is the illegality of the disposition. Since the illegality of the disposition should be determined in relation to the plaintiff's application that caused the defendant administrative agency to issue the disposition, it shall not be changed in the content of the application that caused the defendant to issue the disposition while disputing the illegality of the disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du859, Apr. 27, 2006). As seen earlier, the plaintiff asserted the real name of the party at the time of the application for registration of the person who rendered distinguished services to the State of this case, and the defendant also decided that the real name of the party who rendered distinguished services to the State and the person eligible for veteran's compensation was not applicable to the real name of the party, and at the

In December 8, 2014, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff a decision on the amount of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation, as a result of depression.

The instant lawsuit is unlawful as it seeks revocation of the disposition that the Defendant was not the Defendant.

【Additionally, evidence Nos. 3 and 5 of the Plaintiff’s real name or euthanasia (U.S. service of this armed forces with an unclaimed disorder).