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 17, 197, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from active service on February 14, 1980, and was on the ground that it continued to be on active service after having been on active service after having been on active service in the training for a brutman during January 1978, the Plaintiff applied for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished service to the Defendant on the ground that he was on active service and continued to be on active service after having been on active service.

B. On April 25, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision on the person who rendered distinguished services to the State and the person eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that it cannot find a proximate causal relationship between the instant wounds and the Plaintiff’s performance of military duties or training (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff suffered suffering from the dynamics after being hospitalized for about 12 months after receiving the dynamics during the brush training in January 1978, and even in the case of being exposed to the brusium due to the brusary legacy in the same state, the brusing symptoms are repeated, and thus, the defendant's disposition that did not recognize the proximate causal relation between the two in this case and the military performance of official duties is unlawful.

B. "A soldier or police officer wounded or disabled during education and training (including a disease)" as referred to in Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State refers to the injury or disease during education and training or in the performance of duty. Thus, in order to be different from the above provision, there should be proximate causal relation between education and training or in the performance of duty and the injury or disease thereof, and the existence of such proximate causal relation should be proved by the party asserting it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du5617, Sept. 23, 2003), medical and natural science.