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 July 9, 1996, the Plaintiff entered the Army and discharged the Plaintiff from military service on September 8, 1998.

B. On June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons who received veterans benefits, claiming that “the Defendant transferred 24-person content during the AT training and used it on the floor without weighting it.” (hereinafter “instant wounds”).

C. On October 29, 2015 after the deliberation of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered a decision on the requirements of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State and on the non-conformity of the requirements of a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”), on the ground that “In light of the fact that there is no proof that there was a clear change in film and change in the CT transfer taken four months after entry, and that there is no medical opinion to recognize that an acute outbreak occurred due to credit, and that the symptoms of expansion are temporary or natural healing, and that there is no possibility of causing harm to daily life, proximate causal relation with the military duty,” on the ground that “the determination on non-conformity of the requirements of a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In the Plaintiff’s assertion AT training, there is a proximate causal link between the instant wounds and the Plaintiff’s performance of official duties, as it was caused by shocks caused by the process of moving 24 persons with a weight up to 60 km and going beyond the floor, and the existing disease rapidly aggravated above the natural progress.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case made on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination is based on Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State and Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation.