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 May 30, 1981, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from active service on June 30, 1990. On the ground that “In the course of transporting military supplies on board a military unit on February 21, 1984, the military vehicle was injured due to the collision with buses, but did not have a fluencing flusium in leading to the promotion of middle death, and thereafter did not have a flusium in the course of receiving training for the first time in the course of receiving the training for the first time, the Plaintiff received medical treatment after receiving the diagnosis of the flusium loss on both sides of the fifth in the National Army Hospital on August 18, 1987, and even after the discharge, it continued to reach the flusium,” the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant under the application for registration of the 5th in order to be considered as having rendered distinguished services to the State.

B. On December 8, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision on the person who rendered distinguished services to the State and the person eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that it cannot find a proximate causal relationship between the instant wounds and the Plaintiff’s performance of military duties or training (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff suffered a large traffic accident on February 21, 1984, and on August 18, 1987, at the National Armed Forces Hospital of the Republic of Korea, for not less than 2 years since he was found to have suffered from the 5th century losses on both sides, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's symptoms are the cause of the aftermath of the traffic accident, the excessive exercise, and the unreasonable extreme training, rather than the symptoms, and therefore, the defendant's disposition that did not recognize the proximate causal relation between the difference and the military performance of official duties is unlawful.

B. “A soldier or a veteran in the course of performing his/her duties or education and training (including diseases)” referred to in Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State.