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 17, 1998, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from the military service on May 13, 1999 when serving in the Third Class of the Military Service.

B. At the time of military service, the Plaintiff asserted that protruding escape from a signboard (around November 26, 199, 199) occurred due to advanced construction and continuous work and training. On November 28, 2000, the Plaintiff first filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State. On September 22, 2000, the Defendant recognized the Plaintiff as a person meeting the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “the first disposition”), based on the Plaintiff’s above wound was related to official duties, and recognized the Plaintiff as a person meeting the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “the first disposition”). New physical examination results on December 4, 200, 200, the second physical examination results on November 28, 200, and the second physical examination results on February 11, 2009.

C. After that, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-verification on May 31, 2013. The Defendant again deliberated by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement on the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State pursuant to Article 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24013, Jul. 31, 2012), and as a result, it is not determined that the Plaintiff’s application for re-verification escape (e.g., 1-2), among the Plaintiff’s wounds, was caused by an injury in the course of performing duties or education and training directly related to national security, etc., but it was determined as a person meeting the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State. However, it was determined as a person meeting the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State, and thus, it was determined as a person meeting the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State.

Accordingly, on November 25, 2013, the defendant met the requirements for persons eligible for veteran's compensation only for the first prize of this case against the plaintiff.