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 February 9, 1999, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and was discharged from military service on December 27, 199, on the ground of the “Banchine Danenenenene Dan (hereinafter the instant wounds)” (hereinafter the instant wounds).

B. In 2007 and 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of the instant wounds to the Defendant, but all were dismissed on the grounds that it is not relevant between the instant wounds and the military service.

C. On August 2, 2013, the Plaintiff again filed an application for the registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State and a person eligible for veteran’s compensation again to the Defendant. On December 6, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the said application on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the instant wounds and the military service (hereinafter the instant disposition).

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on June 10, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was 25dB and 35dB on the left-hand side at the time of the physical examination for the illness. While conducting shooting training during the military service, the Plaintiff’s assertion significantly aggravated to 58dB and 71dB on the left-hand side.

Therefore, the difference between the Plaintiff and the instant case is deemed to be in proximate causal relation with the military service, and the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Facts 1) The plaintiff was undergoing cryptive training after entering the National Armed Forces on September 17, 1999, and was diagnosed by the National Armed Forces East-dong Hospital on October 26, 1999. According to the records of the record of the record of the record of the record of the record of the survey on July 25, 1989, the plaintiff stated that the record of the record of the survey on the plaintiff's cryptive observation on July 25, 1989: 60dB on the right side, 53dB on the left side, 35dB on August 31, 199, 25dB on the right side, 205dB on the right side, 25dB on the right side, 35dB on the right side, 20dB on September 27, 1999; 20dB on September 27, 207.