1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, while serving in the Army on February 6, 2012, was discharged from military service on July 29, 2013 and was discharged from military service on September 26, 2013.

B. On October 14, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that spine separation (hereinafter “instant wounds”) occurred due to military service to the Defendant.

C. On February 26, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision on each of the persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s injury (including a disease) did not confirm the relevance with the State’s security or performance of official duties.

On May 28, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a petition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s petition on November 25, 2014.

【Ground for recognition】 Each entry of evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) Although the Defendant conducted a physical examination against the Plaintiff under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the Act”), the instant disposition was unlawful.

② On February 2013, the Plaintiff continuously mobilized to transport and move heavy things, etc. in the military, and the occurrence of the instant wounds due to education and training or performance of duties during military service, such as putting a heavy military funeral in the course of a harsh training course around February 2013, and thus, the instant disposition otherwise determined is unlawful, even if there exists a proximate causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s performance of duties and the instant difference.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. (1) During the military service period, the Plaintiff’s medical treatment details (A) during the military service period is an luxa pain around March 7, 2013 while entering the military and serving in the military on February 6, 2012.