1. On June 25, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition against the Plaintiff regarding the non-conformity of the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 30, 2006, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and was discharged from military service on March 1, 201 as noncommissioned Officers ( First Lieutenant).

B. On June 301, 2009, the Plaintiff asserted that “Around June 2009, the Plaintiff continued to perform his/her duties, who was diagnosed by a flusium during the training period. Around June 23, 2009, the flusium was diagnosed by a flusium, and was performed under the diagnosis of a flusium at a private hospital on July 9, 2009 after being diagnosed by a flusium. Around April 30, 2010, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by a flusium MRI as a slusium result of the flusium for the National Armed Forces of Korea.” On February 25, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the State on June 25, 2015, for the registration of a flusium flusium and slusium flusium flusium.”

C. On June 16, 2015, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement suffered from military duties or education and training, which are directly related to the national defense, etc., with regard to “regular accounts” and “slives of slives of slives” from the application filed on June 16, 2015.

Recognizing that the occurrence or aggravation is caused by considerable causal relationship with military duties or education and training, it was decided that this does not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran's compensation.

Based on this, on June 25, 2015, the Defendant issued a notice of a disposition corresponding to the non-applicable requirements of the persons, etc. of distinguished services to the State (military and wounded for the injury of the State).

hereinafter referred to as "a non-conformity of the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State of this case," "a disposition of non-conformity of the requirements for persons eligible for veteran's compensation of this case," and "each of the above two dispositions," respectively.

(ii) [The facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap's 2 through 4, Eul's 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① caused the Plaintiff’s training of high exchange pressure and high pressure pressure to the Plaintiff, or significantly aggravated the natural progress.