1. On January 13, 2016, the Defendant’s refusal to recognize part of the persons who rendered distinguished services to the State against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 5, 1980, the Plaintiff entered the Navy and discharged him from military service on June 30, 2015.

B. On July 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons of distinguished service to the State with respect to the assertion that: (a) the Plaintiff suffered from a wound in the boom training; (b) was exposed to the noise of naval vessels for a period of at least 30 years during the military service; and (c) was caused by “the fluence in the fluence and the left-hand chronic disorder;” and (d) was caused by “the flu

C. On January 13, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of refusal (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to recognize part of the requirements for soldier and policeman’s duty as stipulated in the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, on the ground that the Defendant’s “Mariological Distress” constituted the requirements under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act”), but there was a record that the Marisung Distress was naturally cured as at the time of the Mapo-sive shooting, and that it was confirmed within the normal scope as a result of the Mapo-sive examination, and that it was confirmed within the normal scope, thereby not falling under the requirements for soldier and policeman’s duty as stipulated in the Act on the Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, but the said commission dismissed it on July 22, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. On June 20, 1986, the Plaintiff asserted that he was on board Gwangju, and suffered from the wounds of the upper tent due to noise generated in the course of the balm shooting training. After that, the Plaintiff’s balm-type disease was cured, and the outer balm-type disease was cured, but was treated, but the balm-type damage (functional damage) caused by the balm-type air was not treated, and thereafter, internal combustion, internal extension, and institutional death until discharge.