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 February 1, 2017, Go B (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) is a person who died on January 19, 2018, as so-called the Air Force on February 1, 2017, and is the father of the deceased.

B. On January 15, 2018, the Deceased transferred to the 19th M&A C unit (hereinafter “instant unit”) of the Air Force 19 U.S.A., and was assigned to the 19th M&A’s office and was bound to take charge of the duties of the head of the administrative division.

around 07:07 on January 19, 2018, the Deceased was found to have died after being shicking on the stairs of the lodging room.

On March 16, 2018, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport determined on March 10, 2018 that “the death of the deceased was not caused by a crime.” On April 10, 2018, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport decided that the death of the deceased constituted “in-service III”.

C. On April 27, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with a person of distinguished services to the State (bereaved Family Members) on the ground that the Deceased committed suicide due to excessive occupational stress and pressure during military service.

However, following the deliberation of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, on August 29, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition equivalent to the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran's compensation (hereinafter "disposition equivalent to the requirements for veteran's compensation") on the ground that it is difficult to find the death of the deceased as proximate causal relation with military duties or education and training.

The Central Administrative Appeals Commission of the instant case stated that the Defendant rendered a “disposition to deny the registration of a person eligible for veteran’s compensation” to the Plaintiff in the “reason” of the written ruling on the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal, but this is understood as a clerical error in the instant disposition.

On October 11, 2018, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on February 19, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.