1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 31, 1998, the Plaintiff entered the Army Soldiers with B students on March 31, 1998, and was discharged from military service on May 30, 200.

B. On October 6, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the Defendant for “mental disease” (hereinafter “mental disease”).

C. On May 28, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision on whether a person who rendered distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation was disqualified on the ground that “The filing of an application was incurred during the performance of military duties or education and training directly related to the national defense, security, etc., or was in proximate causal relation with military duties or education and training, and thus caused the outbreak or aggravation thereof” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 5, 6 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had been healthy before entering the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff had been subject to hair and harsh treatment for the appointed soldiers while serving in the military, resulting in the occurrence of an application.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. As to the causal relationship between the performance of duties or education and training and the difference, it is necessary to prove the causal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du12767, Sept. 20, 2007). As to the existence of proximate causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s performance of duties or education and training and the application, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the causal relationship only with the images of Gap evidence No. 1 through 3, 6, and 7, and the images of Gap evidence No. 4.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.