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 December 14, 1975, the Plaintiff entered the army as a candidate for the Staff sergeant in the Army, and was discharged on June 11, 1976, and was discharged from military service on June 30, 1980.

B. On June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that, while performing B training (hereinafter “instant training”) around March 1980 while serving in the military, the Defendant was subject to a false representation on April 20, 1980, due to excessive training, excessive meal distribution, and poor meals due to “the instant training was conducted upon the blood transfusion from the superior minister in accordance with the fire extinguishing shock” (hereinafter “the instant case”) and applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State to the Defendant.

C. On September 13, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on the Plaintiff on the following grounds: (a) on the ground that “the instant wounds did not constitute the requirements for soldier or policeman on duty or soldier or policeman on duty as prescribed by the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc.”) and the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, and it does not constitute the requirements for soldier or policeman on duty or education not directly related to the national defense, and it does not constitute the requirements for soldier or policeman under the Act on the Support of Persons, etc. for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation, on the ground that they are not judged to have rapidly deteriorated at a level above the outbreak or natural progress.”

On November 5, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on May 15, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6 through 8, and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a Gun.