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 24, 2004, the Plaintiff was discharged from active service on September 9, 2006 while serving in the Air Force.

B. On December 28, 2006, the Plaintiff was subject to partial voltage under the diagnosis of “the escape certificate of a protruding signboard centered on the 4-5th century, and the escape certificate of a protruding signboard between the 5th century-1,006.” On November 19, 2009, the Plaintiff was subject to partial voltage under the diagnosis of “the escape certificate of a protruding signboard between the 5th century-1,009.”

C. On November 23, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State. On August 16, 2010, the Defendant recognized that “porizontal escape certificate (L4-5)” was related to official duties, and decided not to recognize “L5-S1” as a difference related to official duties.

On December 27, 2011, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the escape of a re-protruding signboard between the 4-5th century,” and “the escape of a re-protruding signboard between the 5th century - the 1,000th century,” and applied for recognition of additional measures against “the escape of a re-protruding signboard from the 5th century - the 1,000th century” (hereinafter “the instant difference”). On July 4, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of additional measures against “the escape of the re-protruding signboard from the 5th century - the 1,000th century.”

E. On February 20, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision that “The L5-S1 did not recognize the instant difference as having caused proximate causal relation with the military performance of official duties and caused or aggravated injury to the Plaintiff, taking into account the following as a whole: “The L5-S1 did not recognize that the causal relation with the military performance of official duties is created or aggravated” in light of the fact that the symptoms were temporarily or naturally cured, and that the symptoms were not naturally cured and naturally cured, unlike protruding, escape, and heat of protruding signboards in an expansion of the fiber wheels as a result of a glusial flusium (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. Around May 7, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said request on or around July 23, 2013.