1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 27, 1968, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was subject to basic training by October 11, 1968. From October 12, 1968, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on December 24, 1968 due to a mental fission, etc. while entering the transportation education unit and receiving transportation education.

B. On March 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on the basis of the difference in application for “mental fissionability” (hereinafter “instant wounds”).

C. On December 14, 2018, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that the Plaintiff was diagnosed as the instant wound while serving in the military, and received treatment for hospitalization before entering the military; (b) the Plaintiff continued to suffer serious stress to the extent that the instant wound, such as cruel treatment, beyond the scope of general military service; or (c) on the ground that specific and objective records to deem that the Plaintiff carried out the instant wound were not verified, and there is no proximate causal relation between the occurrence or aggravation of the instant wound and the performance of duties or education and training of the military.”

Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act on Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation") that does not meet the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State

"Disposition in this case" is referred to as "disposition in this case," in which the above decision does not meet the requirements for persons eligible for veteran's compensation.

D. The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed a petition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission for an adjudication, but was dismissed on May 21, 2019. [The Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as stated in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4.]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not cause the instant wounds, such as receiving a normal judgment as a result of the physical examination before entering the military.