1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 5, 2012, the Plaintiff entered the Army as the 306 Supplementary Team, and was diagnosed as a “prestigious escape zone” (hereinafter “the instant wounds”) while serving as a bridge on July 13, 2012, when transferred to the 1175 Military Aid Headquarters B, the 3rd Military Aid Headquarters, and was discharged from military service on June 11, 2013.

B. On April 7, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that on the part of the military unit, the Defendant left the right shoulder among the main characteristics of the mine removal-related education at the military unit, and returned to the military unit, and that he went back to the military unit after having prescribed the military unit in the large medical unit, and eventually suffered the difference in this case, and applied for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation.

C. On October 27, 2014, the Defendant decided that the Plaintiff does not constitute the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State or persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize the injury that was incurred in the course of performing duties or education and training directly related to the national defense security or the protection of the people’s lives and property, and it is difficult to recognize that there was proximate causal relation with the injury incurred in the performance of duties or education and training not directly related to national security or the protection of the people’

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on April 21, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 6 evidence, Eul 1 to 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff asserted that he had been treated as the body before entering the military, and the body before entering the military was healthy, and on May 14, 2008, before four years prior to entering the military, with the bones of shoulder bones, and on October 22, 2008, with the benditis of the benditis, but this is different from the two in this case, and even if not only was related to the bend of the bend of the bend of the bend of the bend of the bend of the bend of the military, the plaintiff was merely once every four years prior to his entrance.