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 May 24, 1994, the Plaintiff was on duty at the Army, and was sent back to an emergency room on March 20, 1995, while watching television at around 21:00, due to the following: (a) A self-freciled tension, respiratory difficulty, blue, food, etc.; (b) the Plaintiff was sent back to an emergency room.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on June 7, 1995 when receiving treatment under the diagnosis of “contribute disorder,” and the Plaintiff was discharged from military service.

C. On April 19, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons of distinguished service to the State with respect to the Defendant, alleging that the “constituous disorder” (hereinafter “instant wound”) occurred due to stress or cruel behavior during military life.

On September 24, 2012, the Defendant filed an application for registration of each person of distinguished service to the State in 2003 and 2005 on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff suffered from the instant wounds due to stress, high-ranking, and her associates from military service in service in 2003 and 2005; (b) the Defendant received a non-conformity of the requirements for each person of distinguished service to the State (no change of circumstances exists to reverse the result of the examination); (c) most of the mental illness was caused by a disease that is caused by congenital or qualitative factors, and (d) there was a medical advisory opinion that there is no possibility of finding the official identity in the event that the disease was caused without any special injury, such as injury to two parts related to official duties; and (c) physical and mental stress was received excessively

No evidence may be verified to deem that the Plaintiff was engaged in a particularly advanced training or an excessive job compared to other fellows, and ④ Whether the Plaintiff asserted alta and cruel acts are likely to be proven, and thus, it is not recognized that there was a proximate causal relation with the military performance of official duties, and thus, it is not recognized that the instant difference was caused or aggravated. The Plaintiff rendered a non-conforming decision on the requirements of a person who rendered distinguished services to the military (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3, 4, 5 (including paper numbers) respectively.