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 September 17, 1963, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from active service at maturity on April 2, 1966, and applied for registration of persons of distinguished services to the State to the Defendant on the ground that, after being discharged from active service on the ground that corrosion was not disseminated due to the heavy snow in 1964 after entering the Army, and the subsequent legacy is continued even after discharge, the Plaintiff applied for registration of persons of distinguished services to the State.

B. On September 9, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision on the eligibility of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State and a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant difference and the Plaintiff’s proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s performance of military duties or education and training cannot be recognized.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was in military service and received treatment under the diagnosis "non-specific respiratory disease, multiple pulmonary disease, move, walking disorder, walking disorder, and the need-to-astronomical disorder" as a result of the examination, but even after discharge, the plaintiff was suffering from the aftermath of the disease after being discharged from military service, on the ground that corrosion was not disseminated due to the storm snow in 1964, and the symptoms were caused only by salted boomed for a long time.

The difference in this case was first caused by the lack of nutrition due to the suspension of the supply of corrosion occurring in the military unit, and the plaintiff is receiving treatment due to the aftermath of the injury and disease so far, so the defendant's disposition that did not recognize the proximate causal relation between the difference in this case and the military performance of official duties is unlawful.

B. The performance of duties or education and training under Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State.