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 18, 2001, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from the military service on August 16, 2001, serving as an ammunition manager in the Korean Pharmacopoeia 2. The Plaintiff discharged from the military service on August 16, 2001.

B. On October 10, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant on the ground that the “mental fission” occurred due to the harsh conduct of an appointed soldier during the military service (hereinafter “instant injury”).

C. Accordingly, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff on March 25, 2014 following the deliberation of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, on the ground that there is no specific and objective supporting data, such as beds to acknowledge the proximate causal relationship between the instant higher branch and the military performance of official duties, and thus, rendered a disposition of non-conformity with the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to

After that, after the plaintiff's beds were confirmed later, the defendant followed a review by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement on the basis of this, and on October 6, 2014, the defendant issued a decision on the non-conformity of the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran's compensation (hereinafter "the disposition of this case") on the ground that the plaintiff suffered mental illness before entering the military and that military service is not recognized to have rapidly aggravated.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's Nos. 1, 2, Eul's No. 1, 4, 7, 9, 10 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. After the Plaintiff’s assertion was transferred to his workplace, the Plaintiff threatened the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff’s gun while on the boundary duty, and created apprehension and fear. The Plaintiff’s cruel act caused the instant injury or disease to be rapidly aggravated due to the occurrence of the disease or the natural progress.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which was made on a different premise, was unlawful even though there was a proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s performance of official duties in the instant

(b) Matters concerning the honorable treatment and support of persons of distinguished service to the State.