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 28, 1974, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on January 31, 2006.

B. On April 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground of the difference in “the blood, eye, and neck on the left side” with the Defendant.

C. On November 7, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision on the Plaintiff’s non-conformity of the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) for the following reasons.

(1) It is difficult to see that an official skill has been caused by satisfaction with the blood transfusion outside the left-hand booming part, and thus, it is difficult to deem that there is a public figure. A person sustained an injury during the performance of duties or education and training directly related to national security, etc.

(2) In addition, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s written diagnosis submitted was made more than 15 years after the award, and it is difficult to confirm the causal relationship with the military service. In addition, it is difficult to confirm the causal relationship between the military service and the military service, as it was made after the lapse of 15 years after the award, the injury was incurred during the performance of duties or during education and training directly related to the national security, etc.

or otherwise, it is not deemed that the outbreak or aggravation of military duties or during education and training does not appear to have been caused or aggravated due to the proximate causal relation with the performance of military duties. [Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, Eul 1, and 2 (including the number of evidence Nos. 1)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion was transferred on December 1, 1997 to the organization management officer of the B organization manpower office.

The plaintiff is subject to the assignment of the director in charge of the organizational manpower room and the change of the assignment (two transferred officers, one changed person).