1. The part concerning the conjunctive claim in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

2...

1. On June 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for revocation of a non-conformity of a person of distinguished service to the Plaintiff, which the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on June 10, 2014, and ② in preliminary order, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for revocation of a non-conformity of a person of distinguished service to the State.

The court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's main claim and rendered a judgment citing the above conjunctive claim, and only the defendant appealed the appeal, so the scope of this court's trial is limited to the conjunctive claim, which is the part against the defendant in the judgment of first instance.

2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to using the “3th judgment” under the second sentence of the court of first instance as “ November 19, 2014.” and “ May 7, 2015.” under the same sentence as “ May 1, 2015.” As such, this part is cited under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim of this case

A. The Plaintiff’s in-depth infection was caused by military service due to infection.

Even if the Plaintiff’s in-flight infection related to bee liquid disease, bee liquid disease is caused by a disease for which the cause of the outbreak has not been revealed until now, combining genetic cattle and environmental factors. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was healthy before entering the hospital, and that there was no genetic cattle related to bee liquid disease, stress caused by military life and the environment of military units became the cause of the Plaintiff’s in-depth disease.

In addition, the plaintiff was unable to receive proper diagnosis and treatment at the military hospital.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s instant disposition that did not meet the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation is unlawful.

B. The Plaintiff’s completion of treatment against the Plaintiff 1 on the first half of June, 2013.