1. The decision that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on October 27, 2014 equivalent to the requirement of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 14, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she entered the Army and was discharged from active service on July 9, 2013, and that he/she had suffered from the wounds of the “balone dubstrokestrokestrokes (e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., the instant accident)” among the Dos of the Happing Army around February 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the Defendant for distinguished service to the State.

B. On October 27, 2014, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant wound, as a person serving compulsory service, aggravated the illness of the Plaintiff as a person serving compulsory military service, due to considerable causal link with the performance of official duties of the military, which constitutes the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation, but did not meet

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on June 9, 2015.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the ground for appeal

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is not related to the instant difference between the Plaintiff’s assertion and the instant case’s wound, and the instant difference is attributable to the injury incurred in the cruel military forces around February 2012, which was directly related to the national protection, etc., and thus, constitutes the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation rather than the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation.

B. (1) In relation to the part on the Plaintiff’s right development, the fact of recognition (1) indicated that there was a pain to the right development of the Do which was the axis of a high school on July 27, 2012 at the time of external records, but there was no details of medical treatment received before entering the military, and there was no details of medical treatment and surgery received from the military forces.

(2) In other words, on February 31, 2012, the Plaintiff continued to have been given medical treatment on July 27, 2012 when he/she was satisfying on the right edge of the training course, and thereafter, he/she was given medical examination on the ground that he/she was satisfying, and on August 31, 2012 at the National Armed Forces Water Service Hospital, the Plaintiff was subject to medical examination on the ground that he/she was satisfying.