1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff was discharged from military service on January 17, 201, when serving in the Army on May 17, 201, and was discharged from military service on January 17, 2012.

On January 27, 2012, the Plaintiff filed for registration of a person of distinguished services to the State, asserting that “A person who had rendered mountain training under the command of the second-class group of the second-class group of military forces on July 15, 2011 after completing a new training was knee “hnee-hnee-hnee-hnee-hne-hne-knee-hnee-hne,” and that “A person was unable to receive proper medical treatment due to his/her severe pain,” and that he/she sustained the difference in “the part-hne-hne-hne-kne-hne (hereinafter “instant difference”).”

On July 18, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision on the Plaintiff’s non-conformity of the requirements for distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the proximate causal link between the Plaintiff’s performance of official duties and the instant difference is not recognized” following the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff entered the Gun and completed a new training course, and was subject to high-level mountain training and physical training after being placed in the self-defense. However, during the mountain training to prepare for Maman-gun that came from early August 201, the Plaintiff continued to serve knee in a knee for knee and continued to serve in a knee as a knee because it was difficult for the Plaintiff to go to a hospital as a new disease. However, on August 13, 2011, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by having a hospital undergo a diagnosis by having knee in a very far away from the left knee while labing the Mapo, thereby getting the center.

Therefore, even if there is a proximate causal relation between the instant wounds and the Gun, the instant disposition that the Defendant did not recognize it is unlawful.

B. The following facts are the following facts: the above evidence and evidence No. 4-1, No. 2, and No. 5.