1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed.

B. The Defendant’s June 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 23, 2010, while entering the Army, the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) committed suicide on a rail in the line of duty on November 13, 201 at the guard, around 13:40 on November 13, 201.

B. On November 27, 2014, the Plaintiff, as the father of the deceased, filed an application for registration of bereaved family members of a person of distinguished service to the deceased with the Defendant, asserting that “The deceased was the sick with a strong physical strength and with a strong depression, the superior, without considering this, caused the deceased to feel insulting and humiliation by sparing, fluence, etc., and caused the deceased to commit a suicide by committing any cruel act as physically difficult, by failing to consider it.”

C. After deliberation and resolution by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff on June 5, 2015 that the Plaintiff does not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that “the deceased is not recognized as having died of the deceased during the performance of military duties or education and training, or as having been directly caused for the performance of military duties or education and training.”

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 7-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Deceased, as a shift leader and an appointed soldier, failed to perform his/her duties properly due to his/her physical physical limitations, led to suicide without any mental and physical pain, as he/she had a serious quality and personal maternity from the officers of the relevant unit.

The deceased’s shift duty, etc. immediately before the death is directly related to the national security of the State. According to the above circumstances, it is clear that the death of the deceased is in excess of his duty or education and training. Thus, the Defendant did so against the Plaintiff.