1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 11, 1979, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and served as a noncommissioned officer on September 29, 1979, and was discharged from military service on February 28, 2013 (the rank at the time was discharged from military service).

B. On February 20, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that the climatic and conical signboard escape certificate (hereinafter “instant wounds”) was created or aggravated due to the performance of duties while in the military service.

C. On August 27, 2013, the Defendant rendered a non-conformity of the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds that there is no proximate causal link between the outbreak or aggravation of the instant wounds and the performance of military duties, and notified the Plaintiff thereof.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On February 28, 2001, the Plaintiff continued to receive treatment with neck and head pains while getting out of the flick or getting out of the knick truck. On August 24, 2011, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as the instant wound due to severe pains on the sloping stairs during the patrol, and was diagnosed as the instant wound. On November 10, 201, the Plaintiff got out of the 6th degree of disability after undergoing a genetic operation on the glick line and retired early after being judged as the 6th degree of disability. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition was unlawful on a different premise, even if proximate causal causal relation is recognized between the outbreak or aggravation of the instant difference and the performance of military duties.

B. According to the evidence, Gap evidence, evidence Nos. 15 and 16, and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments, the plaintiff was diagnosed as the case after going beyond the AOP patrol around August 201, when he was in military service, and was conducted on November 10, 201 at around 4, 5, and 6 around 201, but on the other hand, the above evidence and Eul were found to have undergone a genetic operation on November 10, 201.