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

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 4, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from active service on May 26, 2017 as the wartime labor station.

B. On October 18, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) brought an injury to the Defendant while serving in the military; (b) and (c) caused the instant injury to the Defendant, following the left-hand cut-down of the YEA (hereinafter “instant injury”).

The application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State was filed.

(c)

On August 2, 2018, the Defendant rendered a final decision (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff in comparison with the requirements of national meritorious persons and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s pain appears to have been caused by an increase or decrease by the frameworks of the left-hand side and the flasium, etc. rather than by the flasium flasium,” on the ground that “The Defendant appears to have a direct relation with the instant wounds and military performance.”

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On January 12, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff sustained an abrupt injury while suffering from an abruption, which was caused by a brupted fin of a disguised net pin during night training. The instant injury was caused by the said injury, or the injury was rapidly aggravated due to the natural progress.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition that held that the Plaintiff did not qualify as a person of distinguished service to the State or a person eligible for veterans’ compensation is unlawful.

B. 1) The Plaintiff was given medical treatment as an open standing room for proposing and other parts of the Plaintiff’s admission from March 31, 201 to April 28, 201, as between March 31, 2011 and April 28, 201, including the details of medical treatment.

B) On December 15, 2016, the Plaintiff received medical treatment with a pain that is not right-hand at the Armed Forces Daejeon Hospital, and received opinions on both sides of the “after X-ray inspection”.

The Plaintiff’s medical record “at the time of the Plaintiff’s internal source” is indicated as the “complication” in the Gu newsletter.

C) The Plaintiff asserts.