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 September 3, 1971, the Plaintiff entered the Army and received new education and training at the 31st training center, and discharged from military service on April 30, 1972.

B. On April 28, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State with the assertion that he/she was discharged from active service after being hospitalized in the military hospital because he/she was not returned to his/her home while on training. However, on August 3, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation against the Defendant, who was notified by the Defendant of the disposition corresponding to the requirements for a person of distinguished service

(Seoul High Court Decision 2013Guhap3118, Gwangju High Court 2010Nu1353, Supreme Court Decision 2010Du25084)

(Seoul High Court 2012Nu18). (c)

On March 19, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration as an applicant for re-registration, claiming that ice was severely cut back and returned home at the training center for re-registration. However, on October 24, 2013, the Defendant issued a “determination of non-conformity with the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State or persons eligible for veteran’s compensation” with the purport that the applicant was not deemed to have deteriorated or deteriorated due to military duties or education and training.

On August 30, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration of the Gisung Gisung Gisung (hereinafter referred to as the “instant award”) as an applicant for the re-registration of the Gisung Gisung Gisung (hereinafter referred to as the “instant award”). On December 15, 2017, the Defendant filed the instant lawsuit against the Plaintiff, dissatisfied with the notification of non-specific decision on the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Based on recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul No. 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that he was drafted as a normal person and started military life, and during the training course, he/she shall be sexual intercourse with 8 months only due to harsh behavior by lighting assistants and ice ice, etc.