1. On June 5, 2013, the Defendant’s decision that the Plaintiff was not eligible for veteran’s compensation is revoked.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 22, 191, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with a mental fissiona while serving in the Gun (hereinafter “instant injury and disease”), and was discharged from military service on May 19, 193.

B. The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs on September 3, 200 after the defendant was notified of the decision equivalent to the requirements of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on August 3, 2000, but the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on November 14, 200.

C. On October 18, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the Defendant on the ground of the instant injury and disease. However, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on June 5, 2013 that “it is difficult to recognize that the instant injury and disease occurred due to the military performance of duties or education and training directly related to the national defense, etc., or that the outbreak or aggravation of the instant injury and disease is in proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s military performance of duties or education and training.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On August 12, 2013, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on September 24, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 17, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 17 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the result of inquiry into the register No. 1799 in the Army of this Court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was detained in the detention room on the ground that he was suffering from stressed stressed by a superior while serving in the military, and that the instant injury was caused, even though the instant injury occurred, and that he went away from the military unit without permission.