1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. Requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on March 16, 2016.

1. On July 26, 2001, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from the military service on July 31, 201, when serving as the survey branch commander, personnel management officer, administrative diffusion officer, etc. in B.

On August 25, 2015, the Plaintiff filed for registration with the Defendant on May 2010, alleging that he/she incurred losses in the transportation of skilled goods in the course of genetic training, and in the course of the formation of the truth in the field of genetic training on January 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff, who had rendered distinguished services to the State, had rendered distinguished services to the State, by asserting that he/she exceeded the period of his/her snow removal work in barracks, and that he/she incurred losses in the course of his/her / her field of care.

On March 16, 2016, the Defendant decided that the Plaintiff’s instant wounds did not meet the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “the Act”), but does not constitute the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation under the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “the Act”), and that the Plaintiff’s “the framework for booming the booming the booming the brue” did not meet the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State,

(hereinafter) Determination that the instant wound does not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State and determination that the instant wound does not meet the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”). / [Grounds for recognition] the entry of evidence Nos. 7, 1 and 2

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The difference in the Plaintiff’s assertion is a soldier directly related to the national defense, etc., such as the transportation of accommodation materials during shooting training on May 2010, the promotional repair on August 2011, and the promotional formation of materials during the tactical training on January 2012, and thus constitutes the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State.

Even if not, the wound of this case is now existing due to the performance of duties or education and training as a soldier.