1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts of the disposition may be acknowledged in accordance with the purport of Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings.

On September 14, 1999, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on January 16, 201.

B. On October 4, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant on the ground that he/she received a diagnosis of the 4-5th century during military service (hereinafter referred to as the “instant award”). However, on December 9, 2010, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement deliberated and decided that the application for re-registration on December 19, 201 does not meet the requirements for official duties. However, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement deliberated and decided that the application for re-registration on February 23, 2012 does not meet the requirements for official duties as well as the requirements for official duties.

C. On October 17, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for the registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the Defendant again, but the Defendant, on January 30, 2013, concluded that there was no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s instant wounds and the military performance of official duties, and determined that the requirements for a soldier or policeman wounded on duty under Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State and the Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation were not satisfied

2. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate

A. On October 5, 199, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff sustained the instant difference by wounding Huri while exceeding 40 km of the front line according to the direction of the teaching assistant among the Do that had been engaged in a long-distance long-distance driving group with the 40 km of weight as a training for the new parking training unit on October 5, 199; and (b) thus, there is a proximate causal relationship between the occurrence of the instant difference and the performance of military duties.

In addition, even if the Plaintiff had been injured before entering the military service, the injury was aggravated in the course of the training during the military service, and the injury was caused by the failure to receive appropriate medical treatment.