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 1, 1962, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from the military service on February 1, 1964 as Staff, and from March 16, 1967 to March 3, 1968 after the Vietnam War was discharged from the military service on November 30, 1993.

B. On May 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that the Vietnam War experience caused “the following stress disorder, depression, war patrine, unstable patrine, and physical disability” (hereinafter “instant injury”).

C. Accordingly, on March 19, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision-making disposition on the non-conformity of the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there is insufficient objective data to recognize that the instant injury or disease was caused by heavy stress arising from combat experience.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 4, 5, 7 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant injury or disease occurred due to combat experience, such as witnessing a Vietnam War veteran’s death or injury, etc., and thus, the injury or disease in the instant case must be recognized as satisfying the requirements for compensation for injury or injury.

B. 1) In order to constitute a soldier or policeman killed or wounded in action or on duty as prescribed by the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, a proximate causal relationship between combat action or on duty corresponding thereto, national defense and security, or education and training, performance of duty, and injury or disease directly related to the protection of people’s lives and property should be acknowledged. The existence of proximate causal relationship should be verified by the party asserting such causal relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du5617, Sept. 23, 2003). Whether a soldier or policeman is a soldier or policeman under the Act on