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 June 14, 1990, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on January 31, 2015 while serving as a noncommissioned officer in the Navy.

B. However, on June 2, 2009, the Plaintiff, while serving in the military, was under the diagnosis of “porizontal escape certificate L4-5 and L5-S1” at the Armed Forces Water Service Hospital, and was under the diagnosis of “on the occasions of the time-round drilling”, and on May 1, 2012, the Plaintiff received “porizontal escape certificate L4-5” from the Port B Hospital on the “porizontal escape certificate L4-5.”

C. On February 10, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with respect to a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that “A person was injured due to a traffic accident after completing the external maintenance of the military vehicle in 2008 and returning to the military unit” with respect to the Defendant, who was wounded in the part of the State Council.

[The current state of post-propin escape certificate L4-5, L5-S1 (L4-5 means the state of post-propination of post-propin signboards)] (hereinafter referred to as "the instant difference"). D.

On September 4, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the determination that the instant wounds were caused by the performance of military duties and that they cannot be deemed to have rapidly deteriorated at a natural progress speed above that of the person who rendered distinguished services to the State and the person eligible for veteran’s compensation.

E. On October 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the foregoing decision, and the Defendant, on January 12, 2016, rendered a decision that constitutes a person eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that the instant wound was caused by the performance of military duties and that it was rapidly aggravated at a natural progress speed above the level of progress, and on the other hand, rendered a decision that constitutes the requirements for a person eligible for veteran’s compensation, and rendered a decision that did not meet the requirements for a person who rendered distinguished services

A. [The facts that there is no dispute over the basis for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 8 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff, while maintaining an operation vehicle on April 20, 208, 10 meters is cut off from a board of a height of about one meter, and the Plaintiff completed the external maintenance of the military vehicle on March 15, 201.