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

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 5, 1962, the Plaintiff was discharged from active service on March 1, 1966, by serving as a second lieutenant in the Army, as an officer belonging to the first-class special squad in the Army.

B. At around 20:00 on October 30, 1965, the Plaintiff, while serving in the military, did not separate the fallen acid from the life line connected to the transport equipment during the time when the Plaintiff was undergoing the enemy-in infiltration fall training, and was towed by the main air by cutting the life line from the transport aircraft to the public by placing about 2 hours off the body in the transport aircraft and towing the body into the air.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On November 20, 2003, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State by asserting that the Plaintiff suffered wounds of “Gradism, trees, accusation, and other pathy disorder” due to the instant accident. Accordingly, the Defendant rendered a decision on May 11, 2004 on the ground that it cannot be acknowledged the causal link between the two wounds and the military service, on the grounds that it is impossible to confirm the occurrence circumstance and the name of the person who has rendered distinguished services to the State due to the lack of specific and objective data, such as the beds, etc. which can prove that the Plaintiff had met in relation to the performance of military service, following the deliberation and resolution by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement.

In response to the plaintiff's objection, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the non-competent decision-making measure that is not a person who rendered distinguished services to the State under the above paragraph (c) (hereinafter "previous lawsuit"), but the above court is not enough to recognize that the plaintiff's symptoms continue to exist due to the accident of this case only by the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Rather, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed on September 7, 2005 on the ground that the symptoms of satise infection are observed, and the symptoms of the plaintiff are ordinarily discovered in the same age group, and the above judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

E. After January 30, 2018, the Plaintiff to the Defendant.