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 January 17, 2006, while entering the Army and serving at 2 military headquarters B, the Plaintiff complained of the Huririria on May 2006. From June 27, 2006, the Plaintiff received medical treatment from the Armed Forces Daegu Hospital from June 27, 2006, and on August 11, 2006, the National Armed Forces Hospital was diagnosed as a Mari-Tu-Tap escape certificate (hereinafter “No. 1”) and a 4-5 kidle disc (hereinafter “No. 2”). The Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital on February 12, 2007.

B. On March 12, 2007, the Plaintiff applied for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the Defendant for the instant wounds, and decided on June 21, 2007. However, on July 25, 2007, the Plaintiff was determined below the criteria for disability rating in the physical examination conducted on July 25, 2007. The Defendant rejected the registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State around that time.

C. On May 10, 2013, the Plaintiff again filed an application for registration with the Defendant for distinguished service to the State.

On November 18, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition against No. 1, 2013, that the Defendant did not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and met the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that he was injured, and that there is no proximate causal relation between his duties and education and training, on the ground that he did not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that he was injured in the performance of duties or during education and training

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an objection on December 2, 2013, but the Defendant rendered the instant disposition with the same content as before February 7, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that there was no lusium or lusium treatment before entering the military, and that the plaintiff did not receive training on May 2006 during military service.