1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 3, 1969, the Plaintiff: (a) was discharged from active duty service at the Army on July 14, 1972; and (b) on July 7, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant for a person who rendered distinguished service to the State, alleging that the Plaintiff continuously exposed to shooting noise during the military service to the Defendant “S.G engine gun” due to exposure to shooting noise; and (c) on December 22, 201, there was no objective data to deem that the above wounds occurred in the military service; and (d) the Defendant rendered a decision non-conformity with the requirements for a person who rendered distinguished service to the State on the ground that there was no objective data to deem that the wounds occurred in the military as a result

B. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the above disposition, filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition to grant a distinguished service to the State (No. 2012-Gu 1829), but this court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on May 7, 2013. The Plaintiff appealed, but on March 20, 2014, the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed in Seoul High Court 2013Nu21641, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 11, 2014.

C. On July 15, 2014, the Plaintiff again filed an application for the re-registration of a person of distinguished service to the State with the Defendant on the ground of the application of the following: “The Plaintiff, while serving in the military, participated in all shooting competitions with the representative among eight Ambassadors of L.M.G., and, after shooting training and shooting competitions, symptoms, such as sound, etc., begin, and discharged from the military, and led to the discharge to the present, he/she is unable to lead a normal social life with this name and office, and live at Grade II of the Hearing disability.”

Accordingly, on January 22, 2015, the Defendant rendered a non-conformity of the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds that there is no objective evidence to prove that the instant wounds occurred due to the performance of official duties in the military following the deliberation of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement.

E. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an administrative appeal on May 1, 2015, but was dismissed on October 13, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] dispute.