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 December 8, 1980, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and was discharged from military service on July 28, 1983, and was discharged from military service upon maturity.

나. 원고는 「1981년 사격장 토사 작업 중 들것을 들다 요부염좌로 연대 의무대에서 입원치료를 받고 입퇴원을 반복 중 부연대장의 지시로 사격장 보수작업에 투입되어 재차 다친 후에도 연대 RCT, 대대 ATT, 중대 ATT를 거쳐 82년 유격훈련을 마치고 100km 행군 복귀 중 요부염좌와 치핵 진단으로 후송되었고, 전역대기 중 사단보충대에서 일명 뺑뺑이를 돌다 빈혈로 쓰러져 턱에 8바늘을 꿰매는 중상을 입는 등 ‘허리, 머리, 턱, 치아, 치핵’에 상이(이하 위 각 부위에 대한 상이를 ‘이 사건 각 상이’라 한다

(B) On February 24, 2015, the Defendant filed an application for registration with respect to a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State, alleging that the Defendant sustained.

C. On August 31, 2015, following the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant issued a notice of non-existence of the requirements of soldiers and policemen, soldiers and police officers (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “not deemed that the instant wounds were caused or aggravated due to their performance of duties or education and training.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted as follows: (a) around September 1981, the plaintiff continued to work beyond the military shooting range and go without proper treatment; (b) on November 8, 1982, the plaintiff was hospitalized in the Yaeaeaeae Hospital on the surface of the 100km-gun Do; and (c) the plaintiff's first difference at the time was deemed to be the leap escape certificate, etc.; (d) although the plaintiff was not treated as leap in the area on the side of the military hospital, the plaintiff was merely a mere fluoral fladum, and was not treated as leap in the leap. (d) around July 199, 199.