1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. Requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on September 1, 2016.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 1, 1993, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on October 31, 2015, as so-called the Army Officers, and was discharged from military service on October 31, 2015.

B. On November 20, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that “The Plaintiff applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State by applying for the registration of a person of distinguished service to the State, based on the application form for “the instant disability” (hereinafter “the instant disability”).

C. On September 1, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision that the Plaintiff does not meet the requirements of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”), and that the Plaintiff does not meet the requirements of the Act on the Support for Persons of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”) (hereinafter “the instant decision”), on the grounds that “it is difficult to recognize that the instant difference occurred through the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the security of the State’s defense, etc., or caused the occurrence or aggravation of duties or training.”

On November 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on February 21, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was conducted on March 9, 2007 by the plaintiff due to a traffic accident that conflict with the Oralab in the course of returning to a lodging in Taiwan, among the commissioned military training, and received restoration of the scare, knee, knee, knee, kne, and half-monthly damage to the right-hand kne, and received an operation of the stoke system.

On June 19, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) while working on June 19, 2012, she knee knee knee knee knee knee knee fele, and performed an climatic operation on the right skele fele and the radrhee fel fele s