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 June 27, 2006, the Plaintiff was discharged from active service on June 17, 2008, while serving in the Army as a member of the Army.

B. On October 17, 2010, the Plaintiff filed for registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant on the ground that “Around April 2007, the Plaintiff was suffering from the accident that was caused by a sudden dropout while passing through a dry slope course in the course of leading construction and tactical training to the Yang-gu area, Gangwon-do (hereinafter “instant accident”) and caused an injury to the right-free and the left-hand knee, and the left-hand kne, and the left-hand kne on the right-hand kne, the left-hand kne, and the left-hand kne, by suffering from the injury,” and applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that “the instant injury occurred.”

C. On June 1, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition that the Plaintiff does not meet the requirements for persons rendering distinguished services to the State on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the instant wound and the left-hand knee injury and the military performance of official duties.

[The facts that there is no dispute over the basis for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence 1 and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff did not receive medical treatment on the ground of knee father’s injury, etc. before entering the military, and the instant injury was caused or aggravated beyond the natural progress after entering the instant accident or the military. In light of this, the instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as a person of distinguished service on a different premise, even if there was a proximate causal relationship between the instant wound and the military performance of official duties, is unlawful. 2) Even if the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for a person of distinguished service to the State, the instant disposition that did not recognize it constitutes “a person of distinguished service to the State” under the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Act No. 11041, Sep. 15

(b) facts of recognition 1) The details of pre-entry treatment.