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 May 2, 200, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from active service on November 15, 2000, and applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant on October 18, 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant on the ground that “the Plaintiff was discharged from military service after having been discharged from military service after having been discharged from military service after having been discharged from military service after having been discharged from military service after having completed his/her boundary service around 20:21 on June 30, 200 (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. On January 10, 2014, the Defendant: (a) did not constitute a soldier or policeman on duty under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”), since the filing of an application does not directly relate to the national defense security or the protection of people’s lives and property; (b) however, during the filing of an application, Article 4-5 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Services to the State”), Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Support for Persons of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the instant disposition”), deeming that the filing of an application is aggravated due to the proximate causal relation with the military performance of duties, thereby satisfying the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 7, and 8 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred due to an accident that fell below the multiples where a rail is not installed while returning to the country after completing the boundary service on June 30, 2000 after having been assigned to the Plaintiff at first grade in a physical examination before entering the Plaintiff.

Therefore, it is directly related to the security of national defense and the protection of people's lives.