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 May 13, 1976, the Plaintiff entered the Army as a private soldier, and was discharged from military service on November 16, 1977.

B. On October 31, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that “the escape from a workplace in the military service was serious and undergone an operation, and the injury was inflicted on the front side of the ship and the left-hand bridge (hereinafter “instant injury”) due to the operation performed at that time,” and filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation with the Defendant.

C. On June 11, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision to apply persons who rendered distinguished service to the State or persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that “the instant wound does not constitute a soldier or policeman on duty or a soldier or policeman on duty

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). D. The part regarding the application of a person eligible for veteran’s compensation is determined as “the instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition on July 11, 2018, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on December 18, 2018.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff had the ability to escape from the workplace even before entering the country, but the symptoms of escape from the workplace have deteriorated to the extent that it is necessary to perform surgery in the course of undergoing shock training in remaining 2 months after entering the country.

This constitutes a case where the escape of the plaintiff's workplace is rapidly aggravated at a speed above nature, and thus constitutes a difference in official duties.

In addition, in order to treat the escape of the plaintiff's workplace, an incidental shock control was conducted in the course of performing an incidental shock control in the course of performing an Orr's fixed workplace, and due to which there was a merger certificate (large-scale loss) for the plaintiff to leave the workplace, this also constitutes a difference in the performance of official duties.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff decided as non-party eligible for veteran’s compensation is unlawful.

3. Determination

A. To be recognized as a “disaster and wounded person” under Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation.