1. The part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of a non-conformity of the requirements for persons eligible for veteran's compensation shall be dismissed.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 4, 2005, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service after entering the Army on March 22, 2006. After entering the Military Training Center, the Plaintiff got a diagnosis of “vertebrate separation certificate” (hereinafter “vertebrate separation certificate”) and applied for registration to each Defendant on November 14, 2008, April 30, 2009, and August 19, 201, on the grounds that there was no proximate causal relation with the official duties. Each of the instant soldiers was determined non-conformity with the requirements on the grounds that there was no proximate causal relation with the official duties.

B. On March 29, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for the registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the Defendant on the instant injury and disease, but the Defendant notified the Defendant of the determination on the eligibility of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State and a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the same ground on July 18, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the registration refusal disposition is legitimate

A. According to the records of this case, upon submitting a complaint on October 22, 2013, the Plaintiff stated only the purport of the claim seeking the revocation of the non-competent decision of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State as above, and the cause of the claim was later submitted. After then, the Plaintiff asserted the ground for disputing “the Defendant’s disposition issued on July 18, 2013,” but did not state that the refusal disposition against the registration of a person eligible for veteran’s compensation was unlawful. It is acknowledged that the Plaintiff added a claim seeking the “cancellation of the non-competent decision of a person eligible for veteran’s compensation” on the date of pleading on March 12, 2014, barring any special circumstance. Thus, this part of the lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed after the filing period, barring any special circumstance.

A family affairs decision is made on November 1, 2013 on the application for the change of the cause of action filed by the Defendant on July 18, 2013, which sought the revocation of the “disposition by the Defendant on July 18, 2013.”