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 September 7, 2001, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on June 18, 2002.

B. On July 4, 2002, the Plaintiff rendered an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished service to the Defendant on the grounds that the application was defective, and that the Defendant was subject to a new physical examination, but the Plaintiff was judged to have been abroad.

C. On May 12, 2005, the Plaintiff applied for an additional recognition of the 'L4-5' nuclear escape certificate (L4-5). The Defendant decided to meet the requirements for official duties, but the Plaintiff was determined to fall short of the standards for rating in physical examinations.

On May 1, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for a re-verification physical examination to the Defendant for re-verification of the difference in the case where “L3-4,” the nuclear escape certificate (L4-5), and the nuclear escape certificate (L4-5) (hereinafter “the instant case”).

E. On August 2, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision to the Plaintiff on August 2, 2012, on the ground that there is no substantial causal link between the instant wound and the military performance of official duties (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1, 2, 6, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 3, Eul evidence 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the training center used food during education and training, and treated the stairs, scambly on the lux and on the bridge, and the symptoms have deteriorated after scambling, and discharged the Plaintiff from active service under medical treatment at the National Armed Forces Waterworks Hospital.

Therefore, the wound of this case was suffered during military service, and even if the wound of this case falls under the sedentary disease, the injury at the training center was excessively borne by the plaintiff, thereby making the plaintiff's existing disease worse rapidly more than natural progress. Therefore, there is a proximate causal relation between the wound of this case and military service. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Determination 1.