1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons why the court cited the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes again in the court of first instance. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. First, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff was found to have suffered from the instant wound on June 2006 and around August 2008, and the blood urology and single urology detected around October 2009, and the blood urology and single urology that were found to have been destroyed by luminous infection, the said infection, or the temporary symptoms caused by chronological infection, and the secondary urology examination was not detected; and (b) the Plaintiff was naturally recovered due to the lack of the instant wound or the symptoms of the Plaintiff’s urine were insignificant.

As such, the difference in this case argues that it should be viewed as arising during military service.

In light of the aforementioned facts and medical opinions, the following circumstances revealed by considering the court’s results of the fact-finding on DNA urology and C Hospital urology, i.e., the Plaintiff’s first detection of part-time urology from DNA urology around October 2006, which was asserted by the Plaintiff around October 2009 at the time of the medical examination at DNA urology, and were irrelevant to the above infection; whether the above infection was detected at C Hospital around June 2008, it is not confirmed in the medical record as to whether the above infection was infected by the Plaintiff at the time of detection at C Hospital; it is difficult to view that the disease of this case was not caused by the disease of the previous urology or that there was no possibility of natural recovery from the disease of this case; rather, it is difficult to view that the disease of this case was caused by the disease of the previous urology or that there was no possibility of natural recovery from the disease.