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 February 26, 2002, the Plaintiff entered the Air Force on February 26, 2002 and was discharged from office on August 4, 2004.

B. On July 26, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with a person who rendered distinguished services to the State, alleging that the Defendant had been deprived of stress in military service.

C. On January 18, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision on the Plaintiff’s non-conformity of the requirements for a person of distinguished service (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there is no objective record to determine whether the Plaintiff had a certain degree of stress in the performance of military duties, and that there is no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s decline and the military performance of official duties.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 3, 5, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1-1, 3, Eul evidence 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that there was no symptoms of her mother before being admitted to the Plaintiff, and there was no her mother’s friend. Since excessive work during the military service and her senior soldier’s stressed from her sacity, there was a proximate causal relation between her mother and her military service.

B. Determination 1) “A soldier or police officer’s injury or disease during education and training or education” 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 refers to a soldier or police officer’s injury or disease in the course of performing his/her duties. Therefore, in order to become different as prescribed by the above provision, there is a proximate causal relation between the education and training or performance of duties and the injury or disease, and the causal relation between the performance of duties, etc. and the injury should be proved by the party asserting the causation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du9079, Oct. 29, 2009).