1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered the Army on March 17, 2014, but was assigned to supplementary service on November 28, 2014, and was released from the call on July 23, 2015 for reasons of non-performance of service (disease) while serving as social work personnel assigned to supplementary service on November 28, 2014.

The Plaintiff asserted that, in the course of receiving education and training in the Army Training Center after entering the Army, there was a serious pain on the knee, but it was difficult to receive proper medical treatment at the time, and that there was a light signboard escape certificate, a protruding signboard escape certificate, and a half-month depression (hereinafter “instant wound”). On October 21, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for the registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground of the difference in the instant wound.

B. However, on March 10, 2016, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have caused the instant wounds to the Plaintiff on the grounds that the instant wounds occurred directly due to the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the national defense security or the protection of the people’s lives and property, and the performance of duties or education and training not directly related to the national defense security or the protection of the people’s lives and property led to the instant difference.

Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Act”) and Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “Act”) were determined that the Plaintiff did not meet each of the requirements (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the appeal was dismissed on August 9, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 7 through 9, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Regarding the legitimacy of each of the dispositions of this case