1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The purport of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the plaintiff A, who was selected as a player of a subdivision of a unit and a scare conference on September 201 when he/she had served as a shooting commander (on February 22, 2011, on November 27, 2012, he/she was unable to walk well due to the above injury, he/she did not have a good left-hand knee-knee-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-k

As above, the unit commander who was well aware of the fact that Plaintiff A’s left-hand knee is not good, has a duty of care to prevent the Plaintiff A’s unfeasiness aggravation in the training, such as opening the Plaintiff at the training or organizing a training program that does not burden on the left-hand knee, but neglecting this duty of care, which led the Plaintiff to install a disguised prevention by placing the Plaintiff A at the training conducted around October 201, which was conducted around 201, the Plaintiff’s kneuma, a vehicle under the command.

For this reason, the plaintiff A suffered a severe injury to the left-hand knee, even though he/she was fel at approximately 1.5 meters high after the establishment of a disguised kne.

Plaintiff

A requested a medical examination and precise diagnosis at his/her own stage, but continued to perform military service without undergoing a medical examination and precise diagnosis due to his/her clinical circumstances. A during his/her leave of absence on October 2012, during his/her leave of absence, he/she was diagnosed by the Positotoin Hospital at the Positotoin Hospital at the Positotoin Hospital at the Positoin Hospital at the Positoin Hospital at the Positoin Hospital at the beginning of October 2012, and applied for an operation at the Posito Complex after returning the military unit, but he/she was forced to receive the operation at the Positoin Hospital after returning the military unit, but he/she was forced

7. On November 27, 2012, the Plaintiff was discharged from the service on the date of maturity on 27, 2012, after undergoing an operation, such as Domination and Domination on the half-month.

As above, since the commander of the military unit, etc. neglected to protect and treat the Plaintiff A, the main sentence of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act shall be applied.