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 May 4, 1959, the Plaintiff entered the Navy and discharged the Plaintiff from active service on May 31, 1971.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration of a person of distinguished service to the State by asserting that there was a defect in hearing due to shooting training during military service (hereinafter “instant disability”).

C. On April 10, 2015, following the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the determination non-conformity of the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation on the ground that there is no evidence to deem that there was no direct cause for the instant wounds, or there was considerable causal link with the performance of duties not directly related to combat action or other similar duties, or national defense security, and that there was no considerable causal link between the State’s defense and safety, making

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 and No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On October 11, 1966, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is carrying out counter-espionage operations without wearing protective outfits.

After the bellatization, the symptoms and two symptoms were sent to the two.

In addition, there is an excessive impact on military service due to shooting training, etc.

The plaintiff, at the time, was given an opportunity to receive appropriate treatment in the Gun and was unable to listen to the sound well, and was diagnosed by the hospital with a pnematic disorder.

Therefore, since the wound of this case occurred in combat action, during the performance of duties corresponding thereto, or during the military service, etc., the disposition of this case which judged otherwise is unlawful even though the plaintiff should be recognized as a person of distinguished service.

B. 1) Article 4(1)4 of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service”) means a soldier or a veteran in the line of duty corresponding to a soldier or policeman wounded in action.