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 Gun and was discharged from military service from military service since July 1, 1971 to July 1, 1972.

B. On February 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State with respect to “an injury from post-related stress, depression, and recognition function disorder caused by the fear of war” (hereinafter “instant award”) on the ground that “the body of the war dead, such as that the war dead was discharged in the course of his military service, and the body of the war dead was removed,” and applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on December 21, 2015. On December 21, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State or persons of distinguished service to the State, on the ground that there was no objective proof that the instant injury was caused by the strike or military service, and issued the instant disposition that

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. On July 1, 1971 to July 1, 1972, the Plaintiff, who participated in the war of the Republic of Korea, had observed a shock phase by participating in a large number of battles on July 1 to July 1, 1972, and these pages were constantly reproduced into a malicious class after discharge on November 9, 1972, resulting in extreme stress due to the 'comforcing’, the 'comforcing’, and the 'water disorder'. Around July 2001, the Plaintiff was diagnosed at the Seoul Metropolitan Hospital of the Sector of the Seoul Metropolitan Government with the diagnosis of the 'comforcing stress', the 'comforcing stress disorder', the 'comforcing disorder', and the 'comforcing disease' caused by the fear of the monthly war.

Therefore, the instant difference is deemed to be caused by the Plaintiff’s participation in the Vietnam War and resulting in the occurrence of military service. However, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

B. According to each of the evidence evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, the Plaintiff’s medical treatment continues to undergo the diagnosis of trauma stress disorder, detailed depression disorder, and NOS disorder.