1. The part concerning the conjunctive claim in the first instance judgment shall be revoked.

2. The Defendant limited to the Plaintiff on October 14, 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 25, 1975, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on June 30, 1977.

B. On January 9, 1976, at around 21:00 on January 9, 1976, the Plaintiff served as the 7th unit B commander, asserting that one of the small sources of water bombs was placed on three kinds of water bombs, and that at the time, one of the small sources of water bombs was placed on three kinds of water bombs.

(1) On November 26, 2018, there was an accident in which six members died (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. From 2006 to 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on seven occasions on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s left side of the Plaintiff’s instant accident (hereinafter “instant accident”) occurred” with the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant made a non-applicable decision as a person of distinguished service to the State.

In 2015, the Plaintiff again filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that the instant accident occurred.

On October 14, 2015, the Defendant rendered a non-specific decision on the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the effect that “In addition to the Plaintiff’s statement, it is not possible to verify the occurrence of injury or injury in connection with the performance of official duties, as there is no objective supporting materials, and thus, there is no injury or illness.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, 12, 13, 18, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff suffered the difference in this case due to the accident of this case that occurred while serving as the captain in C.

Therefore, the Plaintiff constitutes a person of distinguished service to the State, as it was wounded in the course of performing his/her duties directly related to national defense and security, and even if not, constitutes a person eligible for veteran’s compensation.

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not appear.