1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 5, 2001, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and was discharged from office on August 28, 2003.

B. The Plaintiff suffered from the injury caused by the 60M string while playing a mountain marching group in the brush training around February 2003 (hereinafter “the instant accident”), from around June 2003, the Plaintiff complained of the aggravation of the brupt pain, and was diagnosed with the escape certificate of the brupted signboard from the end of June 2003.

C. After discharge on March 6, 2004, the Plaintiff filed an application for confirmation of major injury by applying for the escape certificate from a warning board, and was determined by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement to be a soldier or policeman wounded on July 27, 2004, but was determined below the grading standard in a physical examination for disability rating classification on November 25, 2004.

On June 27, 2008, the Plaintiff conducted a re-verification physical examination, but was judged to be below the grading standard. On July 1, 2010, the Plaintiff applied for re-verification but was decided to be non-conformity of the requirements for soldiers and police officers on December 20, 2010.

E. After that, on July 12, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for the re-registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant applied for the re-registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that “a person of distinguished service to the State is not a soldier or policeman on duty, but a soldier or policeman on the ground that “the requirements prescribed by the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State” (hereinafter “instant wounds”) was not determined to have been rapidly aggravated due to the direct cause of an injury inflicted in the course of performing military duties or education and training on December 13, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision that does not meet the requirements prescribed by the Act on the Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State on the ground that “the person of distinguished service to the State is not a soldier or policeman on the ground that military service or education and training has not been determined rapidly aggravated due to the occurrence or the

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 to 5, Eul Nos. 1, 2 and 1.