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 September 11, 1993, the Plaintiff entered the army as a noncommissioned officer and was discharged from military service on September 10, 200, when serving in the former unit.

B. On February 9, 196, while maintaining the previous vehicle while serving in the military, the Plaintiff was killed in the floor and faced with the left head from the front vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and then was diagnosed by the Defendant as one of the following factors: “In the event there is a disease in the outer scarcity in the front of the instant accident, there is an obstacle to the eromatic eromatic erogate and the eromatic eromatic erogate in the middle of the instant accident, and the eromatic eromatic erogate was diagnosed by the Defendant as one of the persons serving distinguished service to the State on September 8, 2009.

After that, the Plaintiff was judged as Grade 7 of the disability rating with respect to the above existing injury and disease in a physical examination.

C. After that, on June 27, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for an additional confirmation of the major whose name was Machine damage (hereinafter “instant injury”) on the grounds that the instant injury occurred separately from the instant injury and the symptoms, such as Machine and Machine, and that it is difficult to live normally due to the occurrence of the instant injury, but on May 23, 2013, the Defendant did not recognize the causal link between the occurrence or aggravation of the instant injury and the performance of military duties against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the causal link between the occurrence or aggravation of the instant injury and the occurrence of military duties was not recognized.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 7, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 4, 7, Eul evidence 10-1, Eul evidence 12-1, Eul evidence 13, 14, 18, 19

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is due to shock caused by the accident of this case, which led to the galone of galpane galpane's galpane's galpane's galpane's galpane damage occurred in around 2009, while the galpane's galpane's galpane flows. Around September 4, 1996.