1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On February 19, 2002, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and was discharged from military service on August 16, 2003 as a wounded soldier.

B. On November 25, 2015, the Plaintiff sustained an escape certificate in the course of performing military duties, and applied for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State on November 25, 2015. Accordingly, on March 10, 2016, the Defendant confirmed that there was a clear external wound in the military duties or education and training directly related to the national security and security, and it is not verified that there was a serious external wound in the military duties or education and training. In light of the fact that there was no spinal pelle, etc. which can be recognized that the escape certificate occurred rapidly, the Plaintiff did not constitute a soldier or policeman of distinguished service to the State under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Persons of Distinguished Service to the State”), but it is difficult to consider that the escape certificate No. 4-5 of a person eligible for veteran’s compensation did not constitute a person eligible for veteran’s compensation in excess of 15th of the Act on the Support of Persons of Distinguished Service.

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【Disposition of this case’s ground for recognition of this case’s existence of no dispute, Gap’s evidence No. 2, Eul’s evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff was receiving high strength training, such as shooting surgery preliminary training, which imposes burden on the Heari by entering the Plaintiff’s assertion group.