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 2, 1979, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and was discharged from the military service on January 14, 1982 with the maturity of the hospital.

B. On December 27, 2010, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant, on December 27, 2010, was mobilized each day for two to three months, carried a large breadth (46km) of the 50 to 60 meters from the Defendant’s body, and there was a brupt and a large brucing pain, and the Plaintiff continued to build the flucing area, and received the diagnosis and treatment of the “ethical signboard escape certificate,” on the ground that the “Gra” was different from the Defendant.

다. 피고는 2011. 7. 13. 원고에 대하여「병상일지상 입대 1년 4개월경에 진단받은 것으로 확인되는 ‘만성 요부 염좌’가 공무와 관련되어 발병하였음이 인정된다 하더라도, 염좌는 관절의 골절이나 인대손상 없이 가볍게 삔 상태로 그 증상이 일시적이며 단기간의 치료로 치유 가능하고, 일상생활에 장애를 남기지 않는다는 전문의의 의학적 소견이 확인되며, 병상일지상 ‘(의증)요추간판 탈출증(L4-5)'으로 진단된 기록 확인되나, 이는 확진병명이 아닌 점 등을 종합적으로 감안할 때 위 질환이 군 공무수행으로 인하여 상당 악화된 것으로 인정하기 어려우므로, 위 신청 상이는 공무상 상이 요건에 해당하지 않는다」는 이유로 국가유공자 요건 비해당 결정처분(이하 ’이 사건 처분‘이라 한다)을 하였다. 라.

On October 6, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the said request on March 13, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is based on the previous theory of admission to the military.