1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 12, 1979, the Plaintiff entered the Army and served as an engine gun for the Army, and was discharged from military service on February 18, 1981.

B. On August 22, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that there was a serious stress in the performance of duties or education and training while serving in the military, and that there was an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant on August 22, 2011. However, on March 13, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision on the amount equivalent to the requirements of a person of distinguished service to the Plaintiff and made a disposition of this case to notify the Plaintiff on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s performance of duties or education and training, and the instant difference

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an application for adjudication with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on June 5, 2012, but was dismissed on October 23, 2012.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. On August 11, 1978, the Plaintiff asserted that he had a honest force when undergoing a physical examination at the time when he was admitted to the military, and that the Plaintiff had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had been

Therefore, even if the difference in this case is deemed to have a proximate causal relation with the Plaintiff’s performance of military duty or education and training, the disposition of this case otherwise determined is unlawful.

(b) Article 4 (Persons of Distinguished Service to the State) (1) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State: