1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 13, 1961, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from active service on December 31, 1970. On June 13, 1966 through February 12, 1968, the Plaintiff was discharged from active service on the part of the Plaintiff, and was discharged from military service on the part of the Defendant, and was discharged from military service on the part of the Defendant for the purpose of distributing munitions, including ammunition, to the combat unit on June 13, 1966. On February 12, 1968, the Plaintiff was exposed to continuous explosion, and was discharged from military service on the part of the Plaintiff, and was discharged from military service on the part of the Defendant. The Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on July 31,

B. On December 30, 2015, following the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that the Plaintiff does not constitute a person who rendered distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that objective evidentiary materials are not verified.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence No. 10, and the ground for appeal

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s duty of distributing munitions, including bombs, that were dispatched before the Vietnam War, was continuously exposed to the instant wounds, and thus, there was a sense of public duty.

B. (1) The determination requires a proximate causal relationship between the performance of duties or education and training in order to constitute “an injury in the course of performing duties or education and training” as provided by Article 4(1)4 and 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State and Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation, Etc., and the proximate causal relationship should be proved by the party asserting such proximate causal relationship.

(2) On June 1, 2007, whether the instant injury has a causal relationship with the performance of duties or education and training is insufficient to recognize the injury, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and rather, the statement of evidence No. 7 in the statement of evidence No. 7 in this Court against the President of the Gyeyang University of Korea.