1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 18, 2002, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from active service on August 20, 2003.

B. On September 3, 2003, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that “the Defendant was injured by 155m towings at a training site at around July 2002 or around August 8, 2002,” and applied for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that “the nuclear escape certificate No. 4-5m (L4-5) was different,” and the Defendant determined the Plaintiff as a person of distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”) under Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Services to the State”).

C. On March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional recognition of injury with the Defendant on the ground that “the escape certificate of the conical signboard No. 5-S1 (L5-S1)” was different for the same reason as the previous injury. D.

The Defendant’s injury to the Plaintiff on October 16, 2014 does not constitute the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State under the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State since it is not recognized that the injury was directly caused by the performance of duties or education and training directly related to national security, etc., and thus, the Defendant does not constitute the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State. ② Since the Plaintiff discharged from active service in 2003, the injury in the instant case aggravated at a natural progress level, and it cannot be recognized that the injury in the instant case was performed in 2010 and 2014, and thus, there is no proximate causal relation with education and training, and thus, it does not constitute the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State under the Act on Support for Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “the Act”).

[The facts without dispute over the basis for recognition, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff.