1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following judgment is added to

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Judgment] The plaintiff asserts that since there is a proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's duty while serving in the military and the difference of this case in the trial, the prior disposition in this case was unlawful on different premise.

However, in full view of the evidence adopted by the first instance court cited earlier and the circumstances cited by the first instance court as well as the result of the fact-finding with respect to the head of the Gamama Hospital at Korea University, the submission of the evidence alone led to the occurrence of the instant wounds due to the Plaintiff’s performance of duties during the military service.

It is difficult to presume that the progress has deteriorated beyond the natural progress.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

① The Plaintiff experienced symptoms that cannot communicate with others because he/she was unable to concentrate in mind even before entering the military.

In addition, the plaintiff was unable to grow well with other people immediately after entering the military, and had already been able to get mixed or sleeped before performing his or her duties on file with the other person, and symptoms suspected as a fluor of a mental fission, such as continuously shaking the head, were shown.

In light of these circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that the Plaintiff had the possibility that the Plaintiff had had had had had had had had the disease in this case before entering the armed forces.

However, at the time of the occurrence of the instant injury, the Plaintiff’s age is 22 years old, and is consistent with the average age, which provides a man with a mental fission.

② On March 21, 1995, the Plaintiff died of an accident in the course of performing his duties as a soldier until December 3, 1996, which was diagnosed as to the instant wound.