1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of “determination on the plaintiff’s argument” under paragraph (2) below, and thus, the same shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion of the trial of the trial, the Plaintiff asserted that the deceased’s disease and death should be regarded as a disease that occurred during military education and training or in the performance of duties, in light of the following: (a) the deceased did not suffer from a disease such as dives, dives, and dives before entering the military; (b) the deceased was judged on a normal level in a physical examination before entering the military; (c) the deceased suffered from the disease during military service; (d) the deceased’s disease and death occurred during military service; and (e) the deceased’s cruel act and sacity occurred among soldiers around 1978; and (e) at the time of the Plaintiff’s interview, the deceased was said to have suffered from a

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 refers to that a soldier or police officer injured or ill in the course of education and training or in the course of performing his/her duty. Thus, in order to be different from each of the above provisions, there is a proximate causal relation between education and training or in the performance of duty and the injury or disease thereof, and the causal relation between the injury and the injury or disease must be proved by the party asserting it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du9938, Sept. 9, 2010), Gap evidence 1 and 6, and Eul evidence 3 respectively.