1. Each of the plaintiff's claims is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered the Army on April 26, 201 and was discharged from military service on February 16, 2013.

B. On June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State with respect to the Defendant, alleging that the nuclear and conical signboard escape certificate (hereinafter “instant injury”) occurred due to military service.

C. On December 24, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition that the Plaintiff’s wound does not meet all the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s wound was directly related to national security, etc., and that it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s wound was caused by the performance of duties or education and training other than that, and that it does not meet the requirements

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On August 201, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that he was in military service, and was in military service, and received an internal nuclear control operation at the National Armed Forces Water Service Hospital around March 201, and received an internal nuclear control operation at the National Armed Forces C&O Hospital around October 2012.

In addition, the Plaintiff sleeped the Malitha on November 201. On February 20, 2012, the Plaintiff slicked the Malitha and Kalitha, 60km of the Malitha and Malitha, and the Malitha was diagnosed on April 19, 201 as the Malitha was aggravated.

The plaintiff's resistant nuclear escape and the climatic signboard escape certificate are generated due to education and training or performance of duty, or become worse due to natural progress or more.

Nevertheless, under different premise, the instant disposition was unlawful to deny the proximate causal relationship between the instant difference and the performance of duties (education and training).

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