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 August 21, 1971, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on January 31, 1974 by having been discharged from military service.

B. On August 5, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) filed an application for registration with the Defendant on the ground that “a person who was killed in the military in a healthy state and was killed in the military due to an assault against drinking and ignitation (hereinafter “the instant assault”) from the senior officer of the headquarters, on February 7, 1973, during military service; and (b) was discharged from military service by suffering from an injury, such as the assault against him/her; and (c) he/she was discharged from military service.”

C. On January 31, 2015, the Defendant notified the person who rendered distinguished services to the State and the person eligible for veteran’s compensation to the effect that it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s filing of the application had a proximate causal relation with military duties or education and training.

On February 6, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. The Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling citing the revocation of the aforementioned disposition on the ground that the determination on the “malical saleological saleological saleological saletion” was omitted. Accordingly, on December 1, 2015, the Defendant did not meet the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State for the foregoing reasons, and notified the Plaintiff of the result of reexamination (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 5, Eul 1, 4 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was in military service and caused damage to the body, Cheongchine and the bones of Cheongchine and Cheongchine, by suffering from the senior officer of the headquarters while serving in the military. However, the Plaintiff clearly recorded that Cheongchine and Cheongchineism had any defect in the record of medical treatment at the time.