1. On September 10, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition against the Plaintiff’s person eligible for veteran’s compensation that was not relevant as the requirement for the person eligible for veteran’s compensation is considered “hive disc.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 4, 1993, the Plaintiff entered the Army as B, but was diagnosed on October 4, 1994, “propin signboards escape certificates and the nuclear escape certificates” and discharged from the military on November 12, 1994.

B. On March 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State, alleging that mental illness (e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., influorical injury) and hard disc (e.g., e., fluorical

C. On September 10, 2015, the Defendant issued a non-specific decision-making disposition on the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s mental illness during the Plaintiff’s assertion was first launched more than five years after discharge from active service, and that it cannot be acknowledged the causal relationship with the two different military service.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 4, 9, Eul evidence 1, 3, 4, and 5 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s alleged mental illness is that, even though the Plaintiff did not have any mental illness before entering the military, efficiencies caused efficiencies by an appointed soldier during military service.

The difference is that although the plaintiff did not receive treatment on the part before entering the military, there was a hurri pain during military service, and it was diagnosed the hurri escape certificate during the military service and discharged from the military service.

Therefore, since the above difference has a proximate causal relation with the plaintiff's military service, it primarily seeks revocation of the non-applicable decision-making disposition of persons who rendered distinguished service to the State, and seeks revocation of the non-applicable decision-making disposition.

3. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

4. Judgment as to the main claim

A. Article 3 [Attachment 1] 2-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act”)