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 March 17, 2009, the Plaintiff entered the Army and served as the BF TW TW in the Army on March 17, 2009, and was on duty as the same year.

9. The soldier’s check was conducted on September 9.

B. On May 20, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant application”) with the Defendant on the ground that “the Plaintiff, while serving in the military, was suffering from a signboard escape certificate due to night training, gambling training, etc.” (hereinafter “instant different types”).

C. On October 23, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting a person who rendered distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) regarding the instant application to the Plaintiff.

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

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Although there was a minor lusium prior to the Plaintiff’s assertion for entering the military, there was a proximate causal relationship between the instant wounds and the performance of official duties, since the Plaintiff was suffering from the instant wounds due to night training and subsequent gambling training in the military.

B. (1) Determination refers to a soldier’s injury or disease during his/her duty performance or education and training (including a disease) under Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State and Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation means that a soldier, etc. is injured or ill in the course of performing his/her duty or education and training. In order to be different from the above provision, there is a proximate causal relation between his/her duty performance or education and his/her injury or disease.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du5617, Sept. 23, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 2010Du12941, Oct. 28, 2010). In such cases, education, training, performance of duties, and injury or injury are not necessarily required to be clearly proved in medical or natural science, and considering all the circumstances.