1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On March 14, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the Army. From May 16, 2013 to May 16, 2013, the Plaintiff was discharged from the military service on the ground of the escape certificate of post signboards No. 4-5 on December 11, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant injury”) while serving in C for the 8 mechanical fire brigade B (hereinafter referred to as “instant military unit”).

On March 19, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant injury and disease occurred while serving in the military, and applied for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation. On September 16, 2014, the Defendant rendered a non-determination of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant injury and disease were generally sediable diseases and do not seem to have occurred due to the Plaintiff’s performance of his/her duties.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleading as to whether the disposition of this case was legitimate or not, the plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case was legitimate, but the plaintiff continued to perform his duties with heavy shotrads after being placed in the military unit of this case and continuously and repeatedly, such as continuing to spread hot shotrads or overing them frequently.

Therefore, even if there is a proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s performance of duty and the injury and disease of this case, the Defendant’s disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a soldier or policeman on duty or police officer

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff’s duties were assigned to K55 autonomous capture No. 1 in the instant unit, and around August 2013, the Plaintiff trained 5-10 times a day during the mobilization training period for 2-3 days conducted on August 2013 (within 2-3 minutes per one time).

The shooting order is a training using the Maternal and Maternal, and the plaintiff is a Maternal as a Maternal tree.