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 April 8, 1992, the Plaintiff entered the Navy officer training course and was appointed as noncommissioned officer on September 12, 1992. On August 4, 2015, the Plaintiff discharged from military service on August 4, 2015, and was diagnosed on September 14, 2011, during the engine pumps maintenance work (hereinafter “instant accident”) and performed a surgery upon the diagnosis of “porizontal signboard escape certificate C-3-4-5-6” (hereinafter “the instant accident”). On December 7, 2015, the Plaintiff received an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant on December 7, 2015.

B. On April 4, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision to the Plaintiff on the basis that there is no proximate causal relationship between the occurrence or aggravation of the instant wounds and kidne diseases and the military’s performance of duties or education and training (i.e., “the part concerning the instant wounds among the decisions pertaining to the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation,” which the Plaintiff raised against the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on April 4, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he had not been able to properly examine the boil and bruth while serving in a narrow environment inside a vessel for about twenty (20) years. Before the instant accident, the Plaintiff had no symptoms or there was no symptoms to the extent that he had experienced bruthing on the bruth part even if there was symptoms to the extent that he had been suffering from bruthing on the bruth part of the instant accident. However, the instant accident occurred on September 14, 201 due to the commencement of both arms and the instant accident, which began to undergo the examination of the difference, and was subject to the examination of the difference in the instant case on November 15, 201. The difference in the instant case was a soldier of the Plaintiff.