1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except as otherwise stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The height of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows from 2 pages 3 to 9.

“A. The Plaintiff entered the Army on June 10, 191 as supplemental service personnel (the subject of the call-up for defense) and transferred to the Army on July 8, 191, 191, and was on active service as a weapons guard of B located in the Haan-gun, Haan-gun, Hanam-gun, for which he was transferred to the C Hospital on the night duty on October 30, 191. The Plaintiff was on active service, and was transferred to the D Hospital on the following day and was hospitalized for hospital, and thereafter, “Masung-gun” (hereinafter “the instant injury and disease”).

The medical examination was conducted on March 4, 1992, and was discharged from military service.

B. In 2001 and 2004, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant applied for registration of the instant injury to the State, but the Defendant determined that the Defendant was not a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s disease and military duty

C. On March 19, 2015, the Plaintiff also filed an application with the Defendant for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and applied for registration of persons eligible for veteran’s compensation. On August 25, 2015, the Defendant filed a claim against the Defendant for revocation of the determination on the amount of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State as the Changwon District Court 2016Guhap50363.

However, on August 23, 2016, the judgment against the Plaintiff was rendered on the grounds that “the existence of proximate causal relationship exists between the Plaintiff’s performance of official duties and the occurrence or aggravation of the injury and the injury and disease in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

In other words, on May 11, 2017, 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. The Defendant on September 19, 2017.