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 May 3, 1974, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from the military service on March 31, 1975, while serving in the 8th sergeant of the Military Service.

B. On June 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State on the ground that “this case’s injury and disease occurred during shock training (hereinafter “the injury and disease”),” with the Defendant on June 17, 2014.

C. Accordingly, on December 4, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision on the person who rendered distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “No objective evidence to verify that the instant injury was caused or rapidly aggravated due to the performance of military duties” was presented to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff entered the Gun without any particular disease. On June 1974, when the head of the Gu newsletter during the shock training, the chest return and hidden symptoms were found to have been diagnosed as the injury of this case. The above injury of this case was caused by the military performance of official duties, or rapidly aggravated beyond nature. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful.

B. Determination 1) In order to constitute “an injury during education and training or in the performance of duty (including illness in the line of duty)” under Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, there should be a proximate causal link between education and training, the performance of duty, and the injury or disease, and the existence of a proximate causal relationship should be proved by the party asserting such proximate causal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du5617, Sept. 23, 2003). In addition, education and training, the performance of duty, injury or disease should not be clearly proved in medical and natural science, and considering