1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff entered the Army on June 26, 1969 and was discharged from office on May 26, 1972.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on Nov. 5, 2008, on the ground that “the pathal pathal secte and the name of the person of distinguished service was different from each other while serving as a leading spathal disease in the Vietnam War from April 23, 1970 to May 12, 1971, and was exposed to the spathal or the spathal spathal spathm distance,” and the Veterans Examination Committee passed a resolution on Feb. 4, 2009 that “the specific and objective supporting material verifying that the person of distinguished service was wounded in connection with military duties” was not confirmed. Accordingly, the Defendant rendered a decision that the person of distinguished service to the State was not in compliance with the requirements of soldiers and policemen on duty.

C. The plaintiff was dispatched to Vietnam on April 1970 and was on the same year.

5. On 24. 26. Written order issued by the FO of the FO on 26th 26th 10 large units, exposure was made to the shot sound of hydrocheon shots until they return to the Republic of Korea in 1971, resulting in a defect in hearing;

Based on the grounds stated in the foregoing, on March 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on the basis of the difference in application. D. On July 21, 2014, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement decided on July 21, 2014, that proximate causal relation between the injury and the military as alleged by the Plaintiff is not recognized. Accordingly, the Defendant’s determination on July 30, 2014 as “requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and those who are not eligible for veteran’s compensation.”

(1) 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion was dispatched to Vietnam around April 1970 and the same year.

5. On 24. 26. Written Order of FO of the Franchisium 26. Written Order of the Franchisium 26. Written Order of the Franchisium 10. Written Order of the Franchisium 26. Written Order of the Franchisium 26. Written Order of the Franchisium 26. B.