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 April 11, 2003, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was appointed as a noncommissioned officer on July 19, 2003, and was discharged from active service on July 18, 2007.

B. On January 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant on the following grounds: “On April 1, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) was engaged in training for a serious unit of operation among the Magdong-gun; (b) was cut off from mountain, and was found to have been subject to pain; (c) on April 26, 2007, the Plaintiff continued to engage in the military; and (d) on the part of the correction work carried out on April 26, 2007 after the military unit’s return, the Plaintiff was subject to the second accident that was hurried (hereinafter “the second accident”) and was found to have been diagnosed on the escape certificate of protruding signboards at No. 5-Yol No. 1. As a result, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the State for registration on the right-hand side of the Magdong-gun.”

C. On June 19, 2015, the Defendant: (a) decided by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement to the effect that “the Plaintiff was injured in the course of performing its duties or education and training directly related to national defense and security, or that it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff was injured or worse due to a proximate causal relation with the military performance of official duties; and (b) determined non-conformity of the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the Plaintiff among the non-conformity of the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation; (c) hereinafter referred to as “disposition in the instant case.”

D. On July 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission against the instant disposition, but received a dismissal ruling on December 24, 2015. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s 1, 2, 4, 5, and Eul’s 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff, while serving as a noncommissioned officer B for about four years after entering the Plaintiff, carrying heavy firearms and conducting long-time training in the state of complete military administration, etc.; and (b) the Plaintiff repeatedly performed work that imposes a burden on the Plaintiff