1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 1, 1998, the plaintiff was discharged from military service on April 22, 199, while serving at the Army, and was discharged from military service.

B. On July 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State by asserting that an IgA’s new evidence and a dead body salt (hereinafter referred to as “instant wounds”) occurred due to military service with the Defendant.

C. On January 13, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition that the Plaintiff’s wound did not meet all the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s wound was injured in the course of performing duties or education and training directly related to national security, etc., and that it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s wound was caused by the performance of duties or education and training

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On September 1, 1998, the Plaintiff asserted that he was killed in a gift in the course of the education and training for new soldiers on the Army. On October 24, 1998, the Plaintiff was sent back to the National Armed Forces Steel Hospital, the Armed Forces Home Hospital, and the Armed Forces Water Hospital, etc., and was diagnosed as the instant injury and disease and was discharged from military service.

Since then, the plaintiff continued to have kidne worse and became subject to blood speculation.

The injury or disease of this case was caused by the education and training of the sick and wounded, or stress and excess of military service, or aggravated to the natural progress.

Nevertheless, under different premise, the instant disposition was unlawful to deny the proximate causal relationship between the instant difference and the performance of duties (education and training).

B. Article 3 [Attached Table 1] 2-2, 2-8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc.”) on determining