1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff entered the Army on September 18, 1995 and was discharged from military service on December 3, 1996 due to a mental fission.

B. On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Plaintiff was classified as an adviser on the ground that he/she was aware of his/her conduct after the transfer to the military unit in November 1995, and caused a mental division by being subjected to continuous sacrific and cruel conduct.” The Plaintiff filed a new application for the registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State for mental fission (hereinafter the instant award), but was determined by the Defendant as being eligible for distinguished services to the State and the person eligible for veteran’s compensation.

C. 1) On August 29, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted the foregoing reasons as above and filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished service to the State for the instant wounds. (2) On February 10, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on whether a person was eligible for distinguished service to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter the instant disposition) on the ground that there is no specific objective evidence to deem that there was a proximate causal link between the instant wounds and the military service, on the grounds that there was no continuous and harsh causal relation between the Plaintiff and the instant wounds during military service.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had been engaged in a normal school life and social life before entering the military unit. On November 1995, the Plaintiff was treated as an adviser for the reason that he/she was satisfying, iceing, and original frying, etc., and was subject to continuous conduct with satisfy. On February 18, 1996, the Plaintiff was subject to an accident where he/she had his/her head at the satisfy and received treatment from the satisfy outside of the military unit, and the instant accident occurred.

Therefore, since there is a proximate causal relation between the difference of this case and the military service, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. The written evidence Nos. 6 through 10 alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had been engaged in continuous sacity and cruel acts, such as saves, ice saves, and original saves, by being classified as an adviser after entering the military.