1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. Requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on January 11, 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 12, 2008, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and served in the 629 World War Veterans Association 629 rank B, and was discharged from active service on January 5, 2010.

B. On May 25, 2012, after discharge, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration with a person of distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation with the purport that, “On May 18, 2009, while serving in the military, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a gregnite in the left part of the instant accident (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and applied for re-registration of a person of distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation, with the purport that, “The instant accident was diagnosed as a gregnite in the left part of the instant accident (hereinafter “the instant accident”), the Plaintiff was suffering from a gregnite disorder on the left part of the body of the Do.”

C. On January 11, 2013, following a resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered a decision on the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and notified the Plaintiff of the instant difference on the ground that “The circumstance leading up to confirming the identity of the official duty of the instant wounds is not confirmed, and the instant difference is inside the inner part of the instant wound, and thus it is difficult to deem it due to the instant wound as a result of credit, considering the medical opinions, etc. of advisory opinions, etc. on the instant difference and performance of official duties.”

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on February 21, 2013, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the appeal on September 3, 2013, and the said written ruling was served on the Plaintiff on September 23, 2013.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1 through 7, the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not have received treatment due to the injury or disease on the part of the instant wound before entering the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff received treatment at an association’s stage immediately after the instant accident, a military doctor erred by misapprehending X-rara.