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 November 28, 1986, the Plaintiff, while serving in the Army, was discharged from military service on March 2, 1989, and on January 19, 2016, filed an application for registration with a person of distinguished service to the State for the following reasons: (a) the Plaintiff, while serving in the Army on March 2, 1989, was subject to rescue from an appointed soldier during military service; and (b) on January 19, 2016, filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State.

B. On April 4, 2016, the Defendant, following the deliberation of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, rendered a decision on the Plaintiff’s violation of the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant injury was caused due to military service, on the ground that “the status of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State and persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State” did not constitute the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation.

(hereinafter referred to as the "Disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists over the instant difference, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the number of branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On April 23, 1987, the Plaintiff asserted that he was killed in the line of duty and was sent to the National Armed Forces integrated hospital for the Armed Forces. The reason why he was found to have been in the course of drinking water-related records, such as the bed area of beds, was that the commander of the unit at the time was frighted to the effect that he did not undergo a bed of the sick draft but go during drinking water-related work, and even if the treatment was not completed thereafter, he was transferred to another unit, and was transferred to another unit, and then he was subject to the instant difference.

Therefore, the instant disposition that was otherwise determined to have a proximate causal relationship between the instant injury and the military service was unlawful.

(b) Determination 1) Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State;