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 November 12, 2013, the Plaintiff was born, and was discharged from military service on May 7, 2014.

B. On October 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant for registration on the ground of “cerebral shock” (hereinafter “application award”).

C. On April 9, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision on the Plaintiff on the ground that “the applicant’s filing of an application does not recognize that it was caused or aggravated due to the performance of military duties or education and training” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion had no mental illness before entering the military, and the Plaintiff had an initial mental illness in the military.

From the standpoint of the plaintiff who was studying abroad, the military life itself can be judged as an institutional and lawful cruel act, and there was a stress to the extent that it cannot be reduced due to violence and bullying in the military unit.

On January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff already aggravated the status to the extent that it is impossible to lead a normal military life, but military officers further aggravated the status of the Plaintiff by allowing military officers to live a military life.

Since there is a proximate causal relationship between the applicant and the military service, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) As to the causal relationship between performance of duties or education and training and the difference, it is necessary to prove the causal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du12767, Sept. 20, 2007). As to the fact that there is a proximate causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s performance of duties or education and training, and the applicant’s application, the evidence No. 2 through No. 11 (No. 10) is insufficient to recognize the causal relationship, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to each of the above evidence, the plaintiff had already been hospitalized at the time of entrance.