1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited this case, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following, thereby citing this case as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

[Additional Decision] The plaintiff asserts to the purport that there is a proximate causal relation between the two wounds and the performance of official duties since the military authority neglected the plaintiff's harmful environment and caused abnormal outbreak or aggravation of the plaintiff's symptoms as it did not conduct a diagnosis and a medical examination as soon as possible. However, in full view of the characteristics of the wound in this case acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the first instance court as seen earlier, it cannot be seen that the difference in this case merely appears to have been realized by the small person who had been inherent in the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the plaintiff's military service, and the time of the occurrence of the difference in this case's period of service in B, the time of the occurrence of the difference, and the result of the expert examination entrusted by the court of first instance, etc., the plaintiff's allegation that the difference in this case was not attributable to the plaintiff's early delay in medical treatment or aggravated treatment due to the plaintiff's sudden failure in military service, etc., as asserted by the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion shall be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable in conclusion as above.

Therefore, the plaintiff.