1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant on the ground that “on February 13, 1996, while performing military service, the vehicle dismantling the end-of-life treatment team for the repair project, the Plaintiff, while performing the duty of military service, caused the Defendant to have rendered distinguished services to the State, on the ground that “The Plaintiff incurred the evidence of infection around the right shoulder, the card of the right shoulder, the card of extremely high-time high-time salt in front of the right shoulder, the card of the right shoulder, and the card of the army following the collision of the collision with the right shoulder (hereinafter referred to as “instant wound”).”

B. On February 5, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Defendant did not have a clear causal link with the military performance since the symptoms of infection in the front right shoulder, and the symptoms of extremely part-time salt in the upper right shoulder are not verified due to his intention, it is difficult to recognize the proximate causal link with the military performance, and the Defendant did not recognize a proximate causal link with the military performance, as it is difficult to recognize the satise collision with the right shoulder, and it does not recognize a proximate causal link with the military performance, as it is a satisfy change, rather than an injury, since it is a satisfy change following the aging.” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

가. 원고의 주장 원고는 군복무 중 폐타이어 탈거작업을 하다가 탈거 압착기 레버대가 원고의 우측 견갑부에 튕겨 충격을 받았다.

As a result, the difference in this case was revealed or rapidly aggravated to the Plaintiff, there is a proximate causal relation with the military performance of official duties.

The disposition of this case, which did not recognize it, is illegal.

B. Attached to the relevant statutes are as follows.

C. On November 16, 1976, the Plaintiff was employed as a civilian military employee in the Army Construction and Repair Service, and was in charge of the repair of composition and the replacement of the bottom of composition. From February 28, 1983 to the mechanical engineering work series, the Plaintiff worked in the maintenance work unit as of February 28, 1983, and September 12, 1995.