1. The Defendant’s decision that rendered against the Plaintiff on September 17, 2015 constituted a non-conformity of the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 1, 1977, the Plaintiff entered the Gun and was assigned as Staff Staff on April 1, 1978. On April 2, 1978, the Plaintiff transferred to the 30th unit of the Air Force to serve as an operations noncommissioned Officer. On October 1, 2000, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on May 31, 2012.

B. From October 5, 200, the Plaintiff asserted that a person himself/herself had been in charge of document security management due to overwork and stress arising in the course of performing his/her duty, and applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished service to the State on December 18, 2013. On July 23, 2014, the Defendant determined that there was no evidence to prove the proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s performance of duty and the above disease, and thus, the Plaintiff did not constitute the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished service to the State and persons eligible for veteran’

C. Around 21:10 on April 26, 1978, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant again on April 6, 2015, by asserting that he/she was faced with the left-hand parts on the column of a large situation plate with the wearing of a military hedgephone (hereinafter “instant accident”), and that he/she incurred “the Jin-Je-Je-Je-Je-Je-Jeng and the Epi-Me-Meng (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and that he/she again filed an application for registration with the State to the Defendant on September 17, 2015, there was no objective evidence to prove the occurrence of the instant accident, and that there was no proximate causal relation between the instant accident and the instant accident, and that there was no reasonable causal relation between the instant accident and the person who rendered distinguished services to the State.”

D. On December 11, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission against the instant disposition, but received a decision of dismissal on May 10, 2016. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, and written evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and evidence Nos. 1 (including a provisional number, and the purport of the entire pleadings)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion.