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 January 21, 2014, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on February 16, 2015.

B. On July 1, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons of distinguished service to the State on the following grounds: “The Plaintiff, while entering the 3 parking training for the new school, was fluored with a bONE SCN inspection, and as a result, the bONE SCN inspection continued to have been conducted on March 2015, the Plaintiff received the multiple bON identification symptoms (hereinafter “the instant injury”). The Plaintiff applied for registration of persons of distinguished service to the State on the basis of different applications for the said injury.

C. Based on the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement on July 28, 2016, the Defendant: (a) did not confirm the record that the injury was caused by special external wounds related to the performance of military duties with respect to the instant injury; (b) did not exclude the possibility of a disease before entering the military; (c) it is difficult to verify the record that the state of the injury was rapidly aggravated due to the performance of military duties, etc.; and (d) in full view of medical opinions and relevant provisions regarding the injury and disease in the instant case, the Defendant decided that the injury and disease does not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation.

(The plaintiff is seeking revocation of the decision-making disposition that is not corresponding to the requirements of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State in this case. Thus, the plaintiff is seeking revocation of the decision-making disposition that is not corresponding to the requirements of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State in this case. 【the disposition in this case’s case’s disposition”). 【The ground for recognition’s absence of dispute, Gap evidence

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff entered the military and received medical treatment with a half-yearly pains that occurred while training in the New Disease Education Team. Since the pains continued to have been diagnosed, there is a proximate causal link between the plaintiff's military service and the injury and disease of this case, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

(b) the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service.