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 8, 1981, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on October 14, 1981.

B. On April 19, 2010, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the Defendant on the ground that he/she was diagnosed and received surgery treatment by the National Armed Forces Capital Integration Hospital as “protruding escape certificate” due to having received an injury from the head of the company in the training center, among the training center’s house, but the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on September 3, 2010 of the decision corresponding to the person who rendered distinguished services to the State.

On October 14, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on February 22, 201.

C. On November 4, 2014, the Plaintiff again filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that the pertinent injury or disease was caused by proximate causal relation with military duties or education and training, and thus, it is difficult to recognize that the pertinent injury or disease was caused or aggravated upon deliberation and resolution by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, on June 11, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the determination that “the Plaintiff was exempt from the obligation to provide distinguished services to the State and the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On June 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on October 27, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap 4, Eul 1, Eul 6 through 8 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was healthy before entering the training center, and it was unreasonable for the Plaintiff to undergo the first blurgical operation while serving in the military, such as car riding, while driving in the training center or serving in the military, and it was caused by the second blurgical operation during military service and not wanting to undergo the second blurgical operation. In light of the circumstances that occurred before the next blurging donation due to the legacy.