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 August 8, 1974, the Plaintiff, who was admitted to the Army and was in military service, showed abnormal symptoms, such as the loss of food and clothing in toilets around February 1975, while serving in the military. Around March 7, 1975, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a cismism at the National Armed Forces Waterworks Integration Hospital.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff received hospitalized treatment at the above hospital and the National Armed Forces Consolidated Hospital, and was discharged from the hospital on August 31, 1975.

C. On October 29, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that the Plaintiff, on October 29, 2012, stated that “the Plaintiff was forced to go to a teaching bridge during the shock training on December 1974, and was injured in terms of trees, legs, head, left back, etc.” and applied for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State.

On February 22, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff does not constitute a person of distinguished service to the State under the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “the Act”), and that the Plaintiff does not constitute a person of distinguished service to the State under the Act on Support for Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons of Distinguished Service”).

() The Defendant filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on July 23, 2013. The Plaintiff had filed an application for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State twice prior to the instant disposition, but all of the decision was rendered accordingly. [The Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition, as well as the entries in Gap’s 2, 3, 6, and Eul’s 1 through 6, and the purport of the oral argument.]

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had his head and boomed to the teaching assistants during the regular shooting training, and had the head and boomed even at the time of the additional shock training.

In addition, while the Embane training was in progress, (head, etc.) injury was suffered.

After that, the plaintiff was diagnosed as a Magovassis in March 1975, and the National Armed Forces Capital Integration Hospital and the National Armed Forces Capital Integration Hospital.