1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 13, 1964, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and was discharged from the military service on February 25, 1967.

B. On May 13, 2003, the Plaintiff stated that he was injured on the part of an appointed soldier, and applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State.

Accordingly, the Defendant, following the resolution of the Veterans' Council, determined that “the frameworks of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State” constituted the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State, and the Plaintiff was determined as Class 7 401 in a physical examination for disability ratings and registered as a soldier or

C. On March 26, 2007, the Plaintiff stated that “the appointed soldier sustained an injury after drinking,” and on March 26, 2007, with respect to “an injury at the her seat,” on March 4, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an additional application for registration regarding “her operation” on July 29, 2013; on May 15, 2017, each additional application for registration regarding “her operation,” with respect to “her part of the her seat, her bridge, etc., or her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her

On December 11, 2018, the Plaintiff stated that “In the military service, the Plaintiff was injured by being killed from an appointed soldier,” and applied for registration of additional medical records on “on the part of pulverization and elel surgery.”

On February 25, 2020, following the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant decided that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”). The Defendant stated that “on the basis of de facto pulverization” constitutes the same difference as that of the wound recognized as a previous wound, and that the Defendant did not recognize the Plaintiff as an additional wound.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 6 to 8, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff asserted that he was killed from an appointed soldier around 1965 when he was in military service.