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 December 20, 1985, the Plaintiff (B) was discharged from military service on September 30, 2008, when serving in the Armed Forces Busan Hospital, the Armed Forces Dong-dong Hospital, and the Armed Forces-won Hospital on December 20, 198.

B. On October 6, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that, while serving in the military, the Defendant caused the occurrence of “the injury resulting from the second injury resulting from the cirratulation (hereinafter “the second injury resulting from the cirratulation”),” No. 4-5, and No. 5-6 (hereinafter “the first injury”), and that, during the military service, the Plaintiff applied for registration of persons who rendered distinguished services to the State.

However, the defendant recognized only the injury caused by the second injury on June 9, 2009 as an official wound, and the remaining injury was not recognized as an official wound on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the relation with official duties.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this and filed an appeal seeking the revocation of the said disposition with the Chuncheon District Court 2010Guhap434, but lost on December 2, 2010, and the appeal against the said judgment (Seoul High Court 2010Nu967) and the appeal (Supreme Court 2011Du26442) were dismissed, respectively, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 18, 2012.

On January 30, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the second injury by the second injury was caused or aggravated, and that the first injury was caused or aggravated, the Plaintiff filed an application to recognize it as an additional prize.

However, after deliberation by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement on September 17, 2012, the Defendant recognized that only the pressure frame No. 6 of the Radical frame was additionally recognized as a wound, and the Defendant determined that the pressure frame No. 1 of the Radical frame (hereinafter “the instant injury”) and the instant injury constituted non-conformity of the requirements for soldier or policeman wounded on duty.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On December 12, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on June 25, 2013.