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 March 1, 1998, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service as Second Lieutenant on January 31, 2001, who was discharged from military service as First Lieutenant.

B. On November 1, 2011, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as having been in excess of job performance and stress, while serving as the personnel officers of the 53th Army Team, and applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant. However, the Defendant rendered a non-specific disposition on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s performance of official duties in the instant higher branch and the instant higher branch on the ground that it is not recognized.

In other words, on March 2, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that he/she applied for the above injury and disease to the Defendant, but was subject to a non-applicable disposition on November 31, 201.

C. On October 29, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of the person who rendered distinguished services to the State. On the same ground, the Defendant, following the deliberation and resolution of the veterans examination committee, notified the Plaintiff on March 17, 2016 that there was no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s performance of official duties in the military branch of the instant case, and notified the Plaintiff of the determination on the non-conformity of the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and the person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On May 3, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on September 30, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, entry in Gap 2 through 4, Eul 1 and two (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted at the 53th Army, while serving as major personnel officers, etc. at the 53th Army, the Plaintiff was frequently engaged in weekends due to frequent censorship by the superior unit, and even during such excessive duties, the number of night clothes and search and inspection support was continuously accumulated physical and mentally, and the Plaintiff was diagnosed with the disease of this case due to symptoms, such as blood change, sudden decrease in body, and arbitracy.

The plaintiff has worked together with the plaintiff.