1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff was admitted to the Gun on September 21, 2006 as B students and was discharged from military service on October 20, 2006 at the Gangseo Police Station C of the Busan Regional Police Agency on September 7, 2008.

On December 7, 2006, the plaintiff participated in the Korean-mae Sports Competition held on December 7, 2006, and then knee-knee and open symptoms were found to be open.

Accordingly, on December 18, 2006, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the left slicks or slicks” in the D Hospital, and was hospitalized in the police hospital from January 3, 2007 to February 15, 2007 due to the symptoms above, and was diagnosed as “the symptoms of legacy by the slickslicks” on February 9, 2007.

After that, the Plaintiff was diagnosed on February 22, 2007, as a result of the MRI’s inspection conducted by the Indonesian University Hospital on February 28, 2007, the Plaintiff received the diagnosis of the "Megical signboard escape certificate (the 5th trend and the 1th tent)," and the "Megical maltyposis certificate."

The plaintiff was hospitalized at the police hospital from March 7, 2007 to April 19, 2007 on the ground of the existing symptoms and other symptoms, and on March 13, 2007, the police hospital diagnosed the cause of the main symptoms of the plaintiff's appeal to the police hospital as the "hume tye knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee kne."

Accordingly, on May 7, 2007, the plaintiff was diagnosed as a "surgical signboard escape certificate" (the 5th century and the 1th century) at E Hospital and received an operation on May 8, 2007.

On the other hand, on May 10, 2007, the Busan Regional Police Agency Deliberation Committee passed a resolution on the Plaintiff’s “after-sale by the Partitioned Escopic Escopic Escopic Zone.”

After discharge on March 22, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished service to the State for the escape certificate, but received a decision equivalent to the person who rendered distinguished service to the State on August 17, 2010, and on June 26, 2012, the Plaintiff again received a decision equivalent to the non-applicable person of distinguished service to the State, and on June 26, 2012, “the instant difference” refers to the Defendant.