1. The plaintiff's primary claim shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 10, 191, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with chronic renal failure (hereinafter “instant wounds”) and was discharged from military service on March 4, 1992 while serving military service at the Army.

B. In 2001 and 2004, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant on the basis of the instant wounds, and the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement decided on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s disease and official duties” both twice, and accordingly, the Defendant also determined that the person of distinguished service to the State was not a person of distinguished service to the Plaintiff.

C. On March 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and applied for registration of persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the basis of the instant difference with the Defendant, and the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement decided on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s disease causes and military performance.” Accordingly, on August 25, 2015, the Defendant also determined that the Plaintiff fell under the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The plaintiff raised an objection to the defendant around that time, and the defendant again requested the Board of Patriots and Veterans to deliberate the requirements pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulations on the Management of Veterans Affairs.

The Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement decided on the above objection that “the occurrence or aggravation of the instant wounds and the proximate causal relationship between the military performance of official duties is not recognized,” and accordingly, the Defendant provided guidance on the determination on the non-specific amount of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation under the title of “the result of re-examination of requirements following an objection” to the Plaintiff on December 21, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant notice”). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, and Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 8.