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 10, 2010, while serving in the Army, the Plaintiff was wounded by the Noise and Vibration during shooting training on September 26, 2010. From October 14, 2010 to October 18, 2010, the Plaintiff received from the Kanyang University Hospital’s medical treatment using the stheme drugs, from October 21, 201 to October 28, 201, the Plaintiff was discharged from the Kanyang University Hospital from the Kanyang University Hospital to the Kanyang University Hospital’s treatment by taking advantage of the stheme drugs. The Plaintiff was determined as physical grade Grade IV (deficial disorder) on March 22, 2011, and was called as public interest service personnel on June 13, 201, and was discharged from the military service on June 28, 2012.

B. On October 9, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that the Plaintiff suffered from the difference between “ear” and “stheme drug side effects” during military service (hereinafter “application side effects”) with the Defendant.

C. On July 25, 2013, the Defendant recognized the Plaintiff as a soldier or policeman wounded on duty in relation to the difference of “ear (e.g., ear-to-face mix voice and spathal e.g., both sides)” against the Plaintiff.

The Court rendered a disposition of partial refusal of the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State or persons eligible for veteran's compensation (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition in this case") to the effect that "the status of application is not eligible for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State or persons eligible

The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on January 21, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4, 5, 17, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had administered the stroke drugs for the treatment of dystroph, and caused a fall in the strophical function of the Plaintiff, and has continued to show a fall in the strophical function of the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff’s side effects of stroke drugs were caused by military service and met the requirements of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State or persons eligible for veteran’s compensation.

The defendant's disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

3. Determination of legality of the instant disposition