1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s person eligible for veteran’s compensation against the Plaintiff on June 17, 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 3, 2007, the Plaintiff was discharged from active service in the Navy on August 2, 2014, while serving in the Navy, and was discharged from active service on August 2, 2014. On March 2, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the disease was caused by a brupt surgery and an armed mountain field training during military service. The Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons of distinguished service to the State on the ground that the applicant’s disease was “the disability of the brue spine, bones, and other conical signboards accompanied by the fluence certificate.”

B. On June 17, 2015, the Defendant: (a) confirmed the records of the Plaintiff’s medical treatment in front of the entrance; and (b) notified the Plaintiff of non-conformity of the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that the Plaintiff’s medical opinion on spine ebrate, which can be recognized as having caused acute aggravation due to external wounds, is not verified; (c) there is no confluence of any confluence or free body movement, etc. to recognize the rapid aggravation of the post-sign escape certificate; and (d) the post-sign escape certificate is a disease generally known to the ebruptal path except in the

(hereinafter referred to as the “decision in favor of the person of distinguished service to the State” and “decision in favor of the person of distinguished service to the State”, and the “decision in favor of the person of distinguished service to the State of this case” and the “decision in favor of the person of distinguished service to the State of this case” collectively referred to as the “each disposition of this case”

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was diagnosed on March 11, 201 at the National Armed Forces Hospital No. 4-5, 201, as part of the regular evaluation training conducted on or around December 201, 201, while working as a special staff member by entering the 2nd unit of the Government Headquarters No. 2007.

Therefore, the plaintiff's dominant position No. 4-5.