1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. On July 22, 1953, the Plaintiff: (a) was discharged from the Army on September 30, 1971 while serving in the Army; and (b) claimed that the Plaintiff sustained fluor in the course of search in the mountain area in 1954 when serving in the military, due to the difference in flusium in the 1954, and (c) applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State in the year 2001; (b) however, the Defendant made a decision against the Plaintiff on non-conformity of the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State

B. On January 15, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted the same reasons and filed an application for re-registration with the Defendant, but the Defendant, on June 15, 2015, rendered a disposition of non-conformity with the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the instant wounds and the military performance of official duties.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed the instant lawsuit on June 18, 2015.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap's 1, Eul's 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Defendant’s disposition of this case was unlawful even though it sustained an injury in the course of performing its duties while serving in the Plaintiff’s alleged military service.

B. (1) In the event that the Plaintiff asserts that the disease occurred due to the performance of duties or education and training, there is a proximate causal relationship between the performance of duties or education and training in order to constitute “a wound in the course of performing duties or education and training” under Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State and Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Act on the Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation, Etc., and such proximate causal relationship should be proved by the party

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Du11842 delivered on June 1, 2007, etc.). (2) As to whether the instant injury had causal link with the performance of duties or education and training, the Health Unit.