1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered the Army as a Army officer on July 1, 1997 and was discharged from active service on June 30, 2012 by subrogation.

B. On August 8, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) filed an application with the Defendant for compensation and registration of a person eligible for compensation with the Defendant, stating that “The Defendant was subject to surgery treatment and rehabilitation treatment for both sides of the shoulder after the examination of the National Armed Forces Water Service Hospital on the end of January 2011, 201, by applying for compensation and registration of a person eligible for compensation, on the following grounds: (b) the Defendant had been engaged in combat force training at the station where he was placed in accordance with the superior unit guidelines and the incidental training plan on November 17, 2010; (c) approximately 20 occasions after the rapid 3km military forces, and at around 16:00, there was a pain and pain pain on both shoulder; (d) the Plaintiff carried out his duties on both sides; and (e) received the surgery treatment and rehabilitation treatment for the shoulder.”

C. On January 7, 2013, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant wound was in proximate causal relation with the performance of military duties or education and training; (b) thus, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the effect that it does not constitute the requirements for soldier or policeman wounded on duty and the requirements for soldier or policeman wounded on duty according to the deliberation and resolution of the Merit Reward Judgment Committee; (c) Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State”); and (d) Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “Act on the

D. On April 9, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 27, 2013. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s 1, 2, and Eul’s 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The difference between the Plaintiff’s assertion and the instant case is in proximate causal relation with military duties or education and training.

However, the defendant is correct.