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 January 21, 1984, the Plaintiff entered the Army and discharged the Plaintiff from military service on May 1, 1986.

B. On February 26, 2010, the Plaintiff applied for the registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant on the ground that “the change of interest and noise in quantity occurred due to military external attack,” but at the 97th deliberation of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement in 2010, it was decided to correspond to the requirements of a person of distinguished service to the State, which was dismissed by the Defendant, and again applied for the re-registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant on January 10, 2017 (hereinafter “the instant difference”).

C. Accordingly, on September 21, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the determination on non-conformity of the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that there was a proximate causal link between the occurrence or aggravation of the instant wounds and the performance of military duties or education and training

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1, 2, 3, 14, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, and 3-1, 2, and 3-1, 3-2, and the purport of the whole oral argument

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The draft physical enforced on August 6, 1983 and the field training center on January 22, 1984, the Plaintiff was judged to have a normal judgment without any abnormal opinion. After entering the military, he was assigned to the training center for 25 joint and several times, and he started shooting at the training center for 25 joint and several times, and he did not have a shooting if he did not have a shooting training. While he was dead, he was a student for 22 group group 55 joint and several times, he had a shooting again and repeated life again, and this name was launched at the 56 group group 56 group 5 group 56 group 56 group 5. (2) The Plaintiff did not have been able to smoke home with her disease and disease status, and he could not have been able to listen to the fine if he or she was from her.

3..