1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 18, 1965, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on August 3, 197, 197, respectively, from the date of August 18, 1966 to November 12, 1967, and from February 27, 1968 to December 8, 1968.

B. On January 3, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted to the Defendant that “Around September 3, 20166, a person was killed and wounded in two-day fingers cutting (hereinafter “instant No. 1”) in the enemy-gun, who was a prisoner of war,” and applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State. However, on the ground that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to be deemed that the Plaintiff suffered the No. 1 in the course of performing his/her military duties, the Defendant rendered a decision on the non-conformity of the requirements for a person who rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “instant No. 1 Disposition”) against the Plaintiff on April 10, 2013. (c) On January 3, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) on January 3, 2013, the Plaintiff is the Defendant’s “Machoneal hereinafter “Hal 2.”

Although the defendant applied for registration of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants under the name of the applicant Eul, on May 1, 2013, on the ground that the examination conducted by the National Veterans Hospital does not constitute actual aftereffects of defoliants, the defendant was "Act on Assistance to Patients suffering from Actual aftereffects of defoliants, etc. and Establishment of Related Associations" against the plaintiff.

) A disposition of non-eligible decision was rendered (the fact that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, Eul evidence No. 1, 24 to 30, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff constituted a person of distinguished service to the State since the Plaintiff got adviser and assaulted to the Vietnam War as a prisoner of war during his Vietnam War, and thus constitutes a person of distinguished service to the State. As a result, the Plaintiff’s second prize occurred due to the Vietnam War, and thus constitutes a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, each of the dispositions of this case on different premise is unlawful.

B. (i) The Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the instant disposition constitutes the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State.