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

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 1, 1980, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was discharged from military service on October 31, 2014.

B. On November 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State by alleging that the escape from a warning sign (hereinafter “instant wounds”) occurred due to military service with the Defendant.

C. On April 29, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition that the Plaintiff’s wound did not meet all the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s wound was injured in the course of performing duties or education and training directly related to national security, etc., and that it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s wound was caused by the performance of duties or education and training

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On August 9, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had been in military service and caused minor pains, two copies, etc. on the part of the lower part of the 2-area fence security patrol, which was posted in the second area. The same year.

9. On October 201, 201, during the combat sports hours, the symptoms were aggravated after excessive physical fighting and hedging, and around October 201, at the National Armed Forces Dong-dong Hospital, the National Armed Forces under the diagnosis of the "racing signboards escape certificate" and under the diagnosis of absolute stability in a waterworks hospital. On October 19, 201, the Plaintiff was administered at the Gangnamnam Syna Hospital. The difference in the Plaintiff’s instant case was caused by education and training or performance of duties, or becomes worse beyond natural progress.

Nevertheless, under different premise, the instant disposition was unlawful to deny the proximate causal relationship between the instant difference and the performance of duties (education and training).

B. The Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Act”).