1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s person eligible for veteran’s compensation against the Plaintiff on September 20, 2016.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the Army and discharged the Plaintiff from active service on August 1, 2014. On June 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “instant wounds”) with the Defendant on the ground that he/she applied for mental illness (hereinafter “instant wounds”).

B. However, on September 20, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the pertinent decision and the pertinent decision for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”) on the ground that “the instant wound was caused by the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the national defense and security or the protection of the people’s lives and property, or it is difficult to find that there was a proximate causal relation with the performance of duties or education and training.”

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on January 10, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had no mental illness abnormal in the military before entering the military. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with the instant wounds because the Plaintiff failed to adapt to the closed military life, which is subject to strict regulations and control after entering the military and led to the outbreak of symptoms above mental illness, such as Korea, and even after being unable to receive appropriate treatment, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as having continuously aggravated the symptoms.

Therefore, even though the difference in this case should have a proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s military service, each of the dispositions of this case on different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination on the primary claim is 1) Unlike the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 11041, Sept. 15, 2011), the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the

Article 4 (1) 6 is directly related to the protection of national defense and security or the protection of people's lives and property as military personnel, police or fire-fighting officials.