1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered the Army on January 12, 2016 and was discharged from military service on October 11, 2017.

B. On November 27, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) was diagnosed by the Defendant on November 27, 2017 (hereinafter “the instant difference”); and (b) was diagnosed by the Defendant, “Fekne-knee-knee-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-

9.2. On the other hand, he was provided with an indeption part of the frame.

For the reason that ‘the difference in this case was applied for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State'.

C. On April 25, 2018, the Defendant: (a) decided on the Plaintiff on April 25, 2018, that “the Plaintiff’s occurrence or aggravation of the instant wounds caused considerable causal link with the performance of military duties, and thus constitutes the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (accidents). However, it is difficult to deem the instant wounds as those directly related to the national defense and security, or the protection of the lives and property of the people, during the performance of duties or education and training, the Defendant’s disposition not corresponding to the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(c) The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 26, 2018. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 8 (including the provisional number), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not have received medical treatment in relation to the instant wound before entering the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was unable to feel the need for special treatment because it was very minor and insignificant in the number of knee persium that occurred around March 2017. During the shock training conducted around June 2017, one year and six months after entering the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff suffered serious pains on knee persne persne, and eventually continued to undergo a surgery. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was able to suffer serious pains on knee perse perse perse perse perse perse perse perse perse.