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 March 15, 1977, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was appointed as a special power plant on September 3, 197 as the special power plant commander, and was discharged from military service on October 31, 1981.

B. On June 10, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State for “Huuri, New Tuberculosis, and Maternal Hemology urology,” but was subject to the disposition corresponding to the expense for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on November 24, 2009, and filed an administrative litigation under this Court 2010Gudan8

On December 9, 2010, the Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the part of “new tuberculosis” does not exist as a disease, and that there is no evidence to deem that there is no symptoms of urology and urine, and there is no other difference related to urology, etc., and that the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On March 22, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with respect to “hurri, new tuberculosis, and primary mal hemosis,” respectively, on February 6, 2015, for registration of “hurri, chronic renal failure, and vailitis,” but both were subject to the disposition corresponding to the expense of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State.

On October 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State on the basis that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the instant wound and the military service performance on September 8, 2016, the Plaintiff rendered a non-conforming disposition for persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on February 21, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is suffering from a serious shock in the field of night mountain training during military service, such as his/her ability to attend a training course at night, and following he/she experienced severe shock in the field of he/she, he/she suffers from the symptoms of his/