beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On February 9, 1967, the Plaintiff entered the Army as a noncommissioned Officer and was discharged from military service on May 31, 197, and was discharged from military service on the ground that “In the course of the public quarantine training on July 1970, the Plaintiff fell and was hospitalized in a military hospital due to the injury of head, cage, and arms while falling.
“In the military service, there was an excessive physical training and gymal abuse at the KAA training site, and thereby, there was injury to cerebral cerebral cerebral, the bones, and the vertebranes, thereby being hospitalized in a military hospital.
The Defendant filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on June 9, 2016, alleging that “the mental disorder caused by brain damage, the bones, the bones, arms, and legs” had been applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State. B. On November 10, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision on the requirement of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that: (a) in the foregoing application for registration, the Plaintiff deemed that “the so-called “the so-called dulle” was caused by a public quarantine training around July 1970; and (b) it was not confirmed that the “mental disease” was caused by the so-called “the so-called “the person of distinguished service to the State” or “the so-called “the so-called “the person of distinguished service to the State” or “the so-called “the so-called “the so-called “the person of distinguished service to the State” was unable to be found to have been caused by the fall or injury during the training.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including each number if there are separate numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff served in the military as the assistant bridge of the UAD military unit, and his head and arms due to an accident during the training of the air transport conducted around July 1970, where the abortion is not properly conducted.