1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On July 2014, the Plaintiff took part in the Vietnam War to Defendant for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State, and applied for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State (hereinafter “instant wounds”) while taking part in the duties of telecommunications relocation to the Defendant.

On December 16, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision that the instant wound was not deemed to have been injured during the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the national defense security or the protection of the people's lives and property, thereby falling under the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence 2, Eul’s evidence 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. There is a proximate causal relation with the military service, as the Plaintiff’s injury (e.g., escape of conical signboards), destruction by both sides, and right-side transfer is difficult due to work and exposure to sporadity, etc., or the existing disease (sporadity of chronic sporadity) has deteriorated beyond natural progress.

Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

B. In light of the following circumstances, etc., which can see the overall purport of the arguments as a result of the request for the examination of medical records to the 1-19 evidence of this court, the evidence Nos. 1-39 (including a branch number), the witness B’s testimony, and the result of the entrustment of appraisal by the above institution was insufficient to recognize that the instant difference occurred during the military service or has deteriorated beyond the natural progress, contrary to the conclusion of the final judgment, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The instant disposition taken on the same premise is lawful.

① On July 7, 1966, after entering the Army, the Plaintiff (C) was discharged from the military service on December 11, 1967 through May 31, 1969 on July 5, 196, after having been discharged from the military service on July 1, 196.