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 March 6, 2007, the Plaintiff entered the Army and discharged from military service on March 4, 2009. On July 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State with the Defendant on the basis of the difference in application for “permission” with the Defendant.

B. On January 10, 2014, following the deliberation of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant did not meet the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State because it is difficult to recognize that the above wounds were incurred in performing duties or education and training directly related to national defense, security, and protection of the lives and property of the people. However, on the ground that there is proximate causal relation with the ordinary performance of military duties, the Defendant recognized that there is a reasonable causal relation

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1, and Eul evidence 1

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff got a disc operation since the Jind Construction and the removal of equipment around October 2007. Since the Heind Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud 2008 in November 2008, it was judged as a disc recurrenced Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Dud Du

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case made on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. The facts of recognition (1) The Plaintiff entered the Army on March 6, 2007. On October 2007, the Plaintiff complained of X-ray evidence while moving equipment after the Jindo Construction, and sent it to the National Armed Forces Yangyang Hospital on December 11, 2007, and was diagnosed with the MOI’s test on December 11, 2007, and was sent back to the Armed Forces Pyeong Hospital.

Since then on November 2008, the plaintiff is again free from the construction of the fire-prevention zone.