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. The plaintiff entered the Navy on January 6, 2003 and was discharged from military service on October 21, 2003.

After discharge, the Plaintiff applied for the registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State and a person eligible for veteran’s compensation on January 19, 2017, by having different applications for “comforcence and adaptation disorder” (hereinafter “instant wounds”).

B. However, on May 25, 2017, the Defendant: (a) on May 25, 2017, performed duties or conducted education and training directly related to the national defense security or the protection of the lives and property of the people; and (b)

It is difficult to recognize that the performance of duties or education and training not directly related to national security or the protection of the people's lives and property, or it is difficult to recognize that the performance of duties or education and training has aggravated rapidly above the speed of natural progress.

Based on the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement that it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff rapidly aggravated at a speed above the natural progress, the Plaintiff rendered a decision that the Plaintiff does not meet each of the requirements of Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”) and 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”) (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with each of the dispositions in this case and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the request for administrative appeal was dismissed on December 5, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of each of the dispositions of this case

A. The plaintiff's primary claim and the summary of the conjunctive claim did not have the mental disease before entering the plaintiff, and there was no family history of the mental disease. However, the defendant was suffering from the senior soldier in military service while serving in the military.