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 December 4, 1967, the Plaintiff entered the Navy, and participated in Vietnam from October 18, 1969 to November 5, 197, but was discharged from military service on November 29, 197.

B. On March 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant for distinguished service to the State, alleging that there was a difference in the Defendant’s service while serving in the military, with the Defendant, in relation to “defluence, chest, and

C. On June 25, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the effect that the Plaintiff’s assertion was not recognized as a soldier or policeman on duty, and that it does not constitute a soldier or policeman’s disease, and that it does not constitute a soldier or policeman’s disease (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 4, 5, 8, 9 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff sustained wounds in the course of rapidly stopping a vehicle while on board a cargo vehicle at the time of the Vietnam War. The Plaintiff sustained wounds, scarcity, scarlet, and brue.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application due to the absence of evidentiary materials, such as beds, is unlawful.

B. In order to constitute a person eligible for veteran’s compensation under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (or a soldier or policeman wounded in action or on duty) or a soldier or policeman wounded in action, the person must first be injured by the Plaintiff, and there should be a proximate causal relationship between the soldier’s performance of duties or education and training, and the existence of the proximate causal relationship must be proved by the party

As to the instant case, the Plaintiff entered the application in the form of “the injury: side, scarcity, and scarcity,” and, unless there is a diagnosis to find any injury on the above body part, it is difficult to view that there is any difference between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff by stating the above body part.