In the judgment of the first instance, the part concerning the plaintiff's conjunctive claim shall be revoked.

On November 23, 2017, the Plaintiff is against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 10, 1999, the Plaintiff was discharged from active service on July 9, 2003, when he was discharged from active service as a short-term service noncommissioned Officer for four years of compulsory service and served as a special duty officer.

B. At around 02:00 on June 8, 2003, the Plaintiff received non-presidential eromatic eromatic erosium (hereinafter “instant accident”) due to an accident that fell from the bed in the bed in the bed room in the bed (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and received non-pactic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eros, and filed an application for registration with the Defendant on July 27, 2017.

C. On November 23, 2017, the Defendant rendered each of the dispositions against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the dispositions in this case”) that did not constitute a person who rendered distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (a person injured on duty) on the ground that the instant wounds were not recognized as having caused military duties or education and training (hereinafter “instant injuries”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 1 through 5 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) During the abortion training of the comprehensive tactical training conducted around 10 days prior to the accident of this case, the plaintiff suffered from the difference in this case. The plaintiff suffered from the difference in this case. Even though he did not so, he was subject to physical training in the military unit and the special skills training in the military unit, and was subject to the accident of this case while on the next day. 2) The plaintiff was a soldier serving as a noncommissioned officer at the 11th Presidential Decree of the Special Army Command in the Army, which was under duty as a noncommissioned officer at the 11th Presidential Decree of the Special Army Command in the Army. Thus, the plaintiff suffered from the difference in this case while he was preparing for his duty as a noncommissioned officer in the military.

Even if it is not so, the plaintiff is "a person who was injured while on duty in the territorial and the watchkeeping room" or "a person who was injured."