1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff entered the Army on November 5, 1998 and discharged the Plaintiff from military service on January 4, 2001.

On August 25, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State with the “certificate of Maternity and Maternity Maternity (hereinafter “certificate of Maternity”).

On November 27, 2015, on the ground that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between military service and different applications for a person who rendered distinguished services to the State and the requirements for persons eligible for veteran's compensation was determined by the Defendant.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence 2, 4, Eul’s evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition is unlawful, since the Plaintiff’s motion was different due to continuous rescue and cruel acts of shooting explosion, shooting, and senior soldiers during the Plaintiff’s military service.

B. In order to recognize “an injury during education and training or performance of duty (including illness in the line of duty)” as referred to in Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, there should be a proximate causal relation between the education and training or performance of duty and the injury and disease, and the causal relation should be attested

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Du3188 Decided November 26, 2015, etc.). According to the result of each request for the examination of medical records with respect to an Aju University Hospital, most of the cases in which the result of the examination of opportunacy by shooting training shows the results of the examination of opportunacy on both sides of the opportunacy test, and the Plaintiff shows the high possibility of exposure to noise, such as shooting training, as the result of confirmation of the results of the examination of opportunacy test on both sides. The Plaintiff was diagnosed as a opportunacy disorder in the examination conducted by a military hospital because there is no proof of opportunacy in the examination conducted by the Plaintiff during the military hospital and there is no memory for about one week prior to hospitalization.