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 November 1, 1950, the Plaintiff made a statement to the Defendant on December 12, 2001 that he sustained a shoulder wound in the boom shotbom in the battle in Pyeongtaek-Sado combat on August 26, 1951 while entering the 8240 unit, which was a U.S.A. headquarters affiliated with the U.S.A. headquarters, and that he sustained a shoulder wound in the boom shotbom in the battle in Pyeongtaek-Sado combat. However, on March 26, 2002, the Defendant notified the Defendant of the decision corresponding to the person of distinguished service

B. On July 17, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State with respect to the Defendant by asserting that he/she sustained a right shoulder in the gambane on the right side (hereinafter “instant wounds”) at the time of the operation of the said gambane.

C. Accordingly, on November 22, 2012, the Defendant issued a written confirmation of facts related to the requirements for persons, etc. of distinguished services to the State issued by the Army Chief of Staff, and notified that the name of the soldier was in blank, and that it was not confirmed that the name of the soldier was in blank, and that “the person who caused the death or injury to the State” in the written diagnosis on the medical examination on the medical examination on the use of the disease was diagnosed as being 49 years after discharge, and there was no objective proof document to confirm that the Plaintiff suffered the injury during combat because the metal substance was not observed on the right shoulder as a result of the Plaintiff’s right shoulder CD reading, and there was no objective proof document to prove that the disease confirmed by the medical certificate was caused by the military performance of official duties, and thus, it does not meet the requirements for the person of distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”). In accordance with the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered on November 22, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including all types of numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. At the time of the Korean War, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was placed in the operations of the second new U.S.A. around August 1951 as a unit of the Bama unit, and was combat.