1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of “judgment on the plaintiff’s assertion of the trial,” under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, citing this as is, pursuant to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the trial

A. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had improved the health conditions before entering the Plaintiff; (b) no person who has shown any disability to adapt to society; (c) no person had found any abnormal symptoms in a physical examination at the time of entering the Plaintiff; and (d) the fact that the symptoms of mental illness have first been realized after the lapse of the period of time after entering the examination; and (c) there was no person suffering from mental illness among the Plaintiff’s family members; (d) the instant difference ought to be deemed to have been suffering from stress to the extent that the Plaintiff was unable to suffer from

B. Determination 1) “A soldier or police officer wounded while on duty (including illness in the line of duty)” as referred to in Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State and Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State refers to the injury or disease that a soldier or police officer sustained in the course of education and training or in the performance of duty. Therefore, for recognition of wounds as prescribed by each of the above provisions, there is a proximate causal relation between the education and training or in the performance of duty and the injury or disease, and the causal relation between the injury or disease in the performance of duty and the injury or disease should be proved by the party asserting that the plaintiff was injured (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du2498, May 28, 2009). However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff was subject to rescue or cruel acts from other military unit, such as a soldier’s disease, and