1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 28, 199, the Plaintiff entered the Army on April 2, 200, and was discharged from military service on April 2, 200, and around August 200, the Defendant applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that “from December 1999, during which he was on active service, he caused “the garment of the Traean” (hereinafter “the instant wounded person”) to be discharged from military service and discharged from military service after being hospitalized in a military hospital.” However, around October 200, the Plaintiff received non-conformity of the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State.

B. On April 24, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration of the instant injury and disease with respect to the Defendant on January 17, 2018. However, on May 14, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on whether to grant distinguished service to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the proximate causal relation between the instant injury and disease’s performance of military duties or education and training is not recognized” (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disposition”).

C. On July 20, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on January 22, 2019, the Plaintiff rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff entered the military in a state of physical health. However, the instant injury to the military was caused due to the outbreak of a brupty since it overlaps with harsh treatment and overwork, etc., and the Plaintiff complained of a decline in trial force around December 199, but only after around February 2000, diagnosed the instant injury and disease. However, considering that the Plaintiff was unable to receive proper treatment at a military hospital, the Plaintiff’s friendly plan constitutes a case where the Plaintiff sharply aggravated beyond the natural progress speed.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful.

B. (1) Determination is made on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State.