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 December 20, 1985, the Plaintiff (B) entered the Army and promoted it to the Major Order on November 24, 1998, and discharged the Plaintiff from military service at the rank retirement age on September 30, 2008. From September 27, 1995 to September 29, 2008, the Plaintiff (B) served for the Armed Forces Deputy Hospital, the Armed Forces Partnership Hospital, the Armed Forces Branch Hospital, and the Armed Forces Branch Hospital.

B. During the military service, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant on October 6, 2008, on the ground that each of the injuries was caused by the second injury resulting from the climatic injury (hereinafter referred to as “the first injury”) in the climatic 2nd, 4-5 square meters, disc expansion, drive escape card (hereinafter referred to as “second injury and disease”), 4-5 square meters, and 5-6 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “third injury and disease”), i.e., e., chronic hepatitis, blood plate decrease, sexual substitute, and target spora (hereinafter referred to as “the fourth injury and disease”), on the ground that the injury and disease occurred.

C. On June 9, 2009, the Defendant: (a) on the part of the Plaintiff; (b) on the part of the Plaintiff, the first injury was caused by an accident that was dissatisfyed from stairs during the performance of his duties; (c) however, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her duty without any inevitable reason, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff meets the requirements for coverage of a person of distinguished service to the State under Article 73-2(1) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State”); and (b) on the other second injury to the State

On August 7, 2009, the plaintiff appealed to the administrative appeals commission under the Prime Minister, which requested revocation of each of the dispositions of this case, but was dismissed on November 3, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] The items in Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. On April 6, 1996, the part concerning the first injury and disease alleged by the Plaintiff was caused by the Plaintiff’s rapid movement of stairs to prepare for the education of officers.