1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 20, 1967, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from Vietnam on May 18, 1970 from April 28, 1969 to May 18, 197, but was discharged from Vietnam on June 20, 1970, and filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State with the intention of having rendered distinguished services to the State by filing an application for the registration of "Yamama 966 Sama Maman Man 966 Saman at the time of the Vietnam War on July 9, 2014, with 200 Sama to 350 Sama at night without Eardo, while serving in the Vietnam War on July 9, 2014."

B. Accordingly, the Defendant against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2014, on the ground that there is no objective data to recognize that the instant injury occurred due to shooting noise at the time of the Vietnam War after deliberation by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, and that there is no objective data to recognize that the injury occurred due to shooting noise at the time of the Vietnam War, the Defendant’s disposition of this case

(c) The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on September 15, 2015, against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on September 15, 2015. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute a matter of absence, Gap’s 1, 4, Eul’s 1 through 8 (which has a serial number) respectively, and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff served in the Vietnam War as a Vietnam War veteran, caused damage to honest force each day due to the crypology of the Suchip, and received Cheongchip test and treatment at the Gyeongbuk University Hospital and Daegu Movable Property Hospital, etc. after discharge from active service.

(However, the medical records of the above hospital are not submitted after the lapse of the preservation period. Nevertheless, the instant disposition was unlawful on the premise that the injury in this case cannot be found to have occurred due to military service.

B. Determination 1) Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Persons of Distinguished Services

) Article 4(1)6 (the "State" in the Military Security Act).