1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 27, 1978, the Plaintiff entered the Army and discharged the Plaintiff from military service on June 11, 1981.

B. On March 4, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation on the basis of his/her filing of an application with the Defendant as a mechanical shielding certificate (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

C. On July 31, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision on the eligibility of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that “the causal link between the instant wounds and the Plaintiff’s performance of military duties or education and training is not recognized.”

(hereinafter “Determination on the Non-existence of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State of this case”, “decision on the Non-existence of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State of this case” and “decision on the Non-existence of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State of this case”, together with the above two dispositions, hereinafter “each disposition of this case”). / [Grounds for Recognition] of non-contentious facts, entry of evidence Nos. 2, 1,

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was sent back to the hospital on the following day, even though the plaintiff was undergoing a field training for 4 days from the Mancheon-do, Gyeonggi-do for 4 days at the end of October 1980, and there was a ductal for 5 days.

Therefore, the difference in this case has deteriorated the number of diseases above the natural progress speed due to the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the protection of national defense and security or the protection of the people's lives and property, or the countermeasures of the commander's cage.

Therefore, despite the recognition of proximate causal relationship between the difference of this case and the Plaintiff’s performance of military duties or education and training, each of the dispositions of this case by the Defendant on different premise is unlawful.

B. 1) Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State

(1) The Enforcement Decree and the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “Act”)

Enforcement Decree.