1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. On April 14, 2014, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and served as a captain and crew member at the 30th Incident, and was discharged from military service on January 13, 2016.

On March 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State by asserting that he/she sustained an injury to the right check due to training, work, etc. while in military service. On July 18, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision that the Plaintiff’s right side of the Plaintiff does not constitute a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”), since his/her previous disease rapidly aggravated due to the cause of military personnel’s performance of duties, etc., thereby falling under the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”). However, with respect to the Plaintiff’s right-hand check and the surrounding pen (hereinafter “person 2”), all of the requirements for the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State.

(hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant dispositions" that the first award does not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State and that the second award does not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State. 【The grounds for recognition 】 The statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s first award constitutes the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State under the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, because the Plaintiff’s assertion occurred during military service due to various training

The second prize of the plaintiff is the requirement of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State since it occurred due to various training, work, etc. while serving in the military, and even if not, it is the requirement of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State.