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 March 10, 2005, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on June 10, 2005, and was discharged from military service on January 31, 2008, when serving as a Class B noncommissioned Officer in the 13th Public Service Corps.

B. On March 21, 2016, the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant that he/she sustained an injury from the field of posture and the field of posture due to boundary service or tactical training, and applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State. On November 11, 2016, the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State, and on November 11, 2016, the Defendant determined that he/she falls under the requirements of a person of distinguished service not meeting the requirements of a person of distinguished service to the State but meeting the requirements of a person of distinguished service to the Plaintiff for reasons that he/she fell under the requirements of a person of distinguished service for the protection of national defense or the protection of citizens’ life and property, or for reasons that he/she falls under the requirements of a person of distinguished service not directly related to the protection of national defense or during education and training.

[The facts that there is no dispute over the basis for recognition, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 and No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The difference in the plaintiff's argument is that the main point of the plaintiff's argument was caused by plicking the right, while returning back to the mission post's boundary duty around 21:00 on February 12, 2007, which exceeded vadidididididididi, and that the brush was found to be hot. Among the regional tactical training (A.T.T.) on June 9, 2006, while moving a slope to the land in accordance with the A.T. military operations, the difference in this case occurred in the course of performing duties or education and training directly related to the national defense and security or the protection of the people's life and property, and thus, the disposition of this case on different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) The former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Act No. 11041, Sept. 15, 201).