1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 16, 1968, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and was dispatched from May 29, 1970 to July 21, 1971, and served as a manager of the telecommunications vehicles, and was discharged from military service on December 4, 1971.

B. On July 30, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) on February 30, 2013, the Plaintiff: (b) was involved in the Plaintiff’s service on the part of the Defendant, for a firearms breakdownd during the service of the communications vehicle on February 1971; (c) the Plaintiff was

(A) filed an application for registration with respect to persons of distinguished services to the State, alleging that they sustained.

C. On January 28, 2014, following the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered a decision on whether a person who rendered distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation was not eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the difference in this case was not clearly identified due to the overall injury, and the circumstance and cause of the injury cannot be confirmed.”

On April 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the ground that it was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, but was dismissed on April 28, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's Nos. 1, 4, Eul's No. 1, 2, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On February 1971, when the Plaintiff was dispatched to South and North Korea and was on duty as a manager of a communication vehicle, the Plaintiff’s assertion divided the Plaintiff’s room and talk. The security unit member called the method of operation by cutting off the spactol and cutting off the spactol, and was in operation and hospitalized treatment at a U.S. military hospital located in the nearby Cambodia only, because the Plaintiff was suffering from the instant difference on the right shoulder of the Plaintiff’s right shoulder.

Therefore, there is a proximate causal relationship between the military performance and the instant difference.

The disposition of this case based on the different premise is unlawful.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant statutes;

C. 1) The plaintiff was dispatched to South on May 29, 1970 while serving in the military, and was dispatched to South and North Korea on May 29, 197, and 30 U.S. 52 of the 900 Bpool.