1. After remand, the plaintiff's primary claim changed in exchange from the trial is dismissed.

2. The trial shall be held after the remand.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 26, 2011, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service as the sergeant on February 9, 2013.

B. On May 18, 201, while serving in the military, during night training, the Plaintiff was diagnosed on the right upper half of the pelvis, and received an operation on September 23, 201 by the diagnosis of “the right upper part of the voice chilling in the National Armed Forces Hospital” at the Kancheon-gu Hospital on November 21, 201; and on July 3, 2012, at the Jannam-gu Hospital, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the high part of the anti-high part of the anti-high part of the anti-high part of the anti-high part of the anti-high part of the anti-high part of the military; and was diagnosed as “the high part of the anti-high part of the anti-high part of the anti-high part of the military; the high part of the anti-high part of the Samsung Hospital on January 18, 2013.”

C. On March 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State regarding the instant wound (hereinafter “instant wound”). However, on May 31, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision on whether the Plaintiff is ineligible for a person who rendered distinguished services to the State and a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”), on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the instant wound and the military performance of official duties.”

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for review with the Defendant, and the Defendant rendered a decision on September 11, 2013 as to the same purport as the instant disposition by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement (hereinafter “decision on review of this case”). D. Decision on this case’s review.

On December 9, 2013, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the decision on review of the instant case, but changed the lawsuit in exchange to seek revocation of the instant disposition after remanding the case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On May 201, the Plaintiff asserted the difference in the instant case while undergoing night training at a new illness education unit.