1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 2, 1965, the Plaintiff entered the Gun, and was discharged from military service on August 6, 1965 through July 15, 1966 after having participated in the Vietnam War under the name of the Franchisc solidarity from August 6, 1965 to July 15, 196.

B. On June 10, 1966, the Plaintiff returned to Korea and received medical treatment after receiving a diagnosis of Malar infection.

C. On March 15, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted to the Defendant that “after having been infected with Malaria after having been infected with Malar, and due to legacy, earh and Malar was caused.” The Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “the instant difference”).

On May 2, 2017, the Defendant rendered a non-specific decision on the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) on the ground that “Mararia is deemed completely cured, and the Dara is not confirmed with evidence proving the causal relationship between the performance of duties or education and training.”

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff was suffering from Malaria, and the plaintiff suffered from the harm of this case due to Malaria. Since the harm of this case occurred due to Malar, the harm of this case is deemed to have occurred due to the performance of duties or education and training during the military service period, but the defendant's each disposition of this case made on different premise is illegal.

B. According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments stated in Gap 2, Eul 2, Eul 6, Eul 9, Eul 2, and Eul 3, the plaintiff was dispatched before Vietnam, and was hospitalized until September 14, 1966.