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 February 18, 1978, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from active service on April 30, 2012. On May 4, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that he/she suffered the difference between “each of the remaining parts of open melting melting in the military service” while serving in the military. On September 14, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition of non-specific determination on the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the Plaintiff on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that each of the above applications made to the Plaintiff had a substantial causal relationship with military duties or education and training

B. Accordingly, following administrative appeals, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a decision corresponding to the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State, Suwon District Court 2013Gudan12069, but was sentenced to the dismissal decision on December 19, 2014, which was sentenced to the Seoul High Court 2015Nu31741, and thereafter appealed on September 8, 2015 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant previous lawsuit”), the appellate court rendered a judgment on September 8, 2015 that “the instant previous lawsuit was revoked the disposition equivalent to the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claims,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

C. On March 20, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional recognition of the injury in the front and the injury in the front and the aggravation of melting melt and melting melting (hereinafter “instant injury”). However, on August 22, 2017, the Board of Patriots and Veterans rendered a decision on August 22, 2017 that the instant injury was not recognized as a soldier or policeman on duty or a soldier or policeman on duty, and on September 4, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on additional recognition of the injury in the first place (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is difficult to find that there is a proximate causal relation with the instant injury and military duty or education and training.

The Plaintiff filed an objection on September 16, 2017, but was dismissed on November 14, 2017. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on November 29, 2017, but filed an appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on June 5, 2018.