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 January 18, 1973, the Plaintiff entered the Army as a short-term soldier and served at the 3th KAF headquarters, and was discharged from military service on November 30, 1974.

B. On November 1, 1973, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on September 7, 2017 with the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff filed an application for the registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on September 7, 2017: (b) the Plaintiff, during the first leave of November 1, 197, was getting down in the Chungcheongnam-gun River Station, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun; and (c) the bridge was flue,

C. On November 29, 2017 following the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that “the records of “the personal injury” were confirmed in the patient registry and the section section of the Bedsings section; (b) on November 19, 1973, personal injury occurred irrelevant to military duties on November 19, 197; (c) Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “The Veterans’ Compensation Act”); and (d) Article 2(1)1 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation, Etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, cannot be deemed as a person of distinguished service to the Plaintiff and a person eligible for veteran’s compensation who is not a soldier or policeman’s compensation under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State because he/she is not a person of distinguished service and a person eligible for veteran’s compensation.”

[The facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence No. 1-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 6 and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is getting off from the river basin while he was on leave of absence around November 19, 1973.

In this case, vavadi was suffering from the same as vadi, which constitutes an accident that occurred during the course and method of giving leave to the destination.