1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s person eligible for veteran’s compensation against the Plaintiff on October 22, 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 26, 2005, the Plaintiff was assigned to the Army Noncommissioned Officers and was diagnosed as a 5th head of the Gun Support Group B (hereinafter “instant unit”) and was discharged from active service on June 30, 201 while serving as a 5th head of the Gun Support Headquarters B (hereinafter “J equipment repair officer”).

B. On March 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State pursuant to the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act”) with the Defendant on the ground that “In the course of transporting heavy objects, tools, etc., the Plaintiff sustained injury on the part of the Huuri-ri, while serving as a heavy equipment repair supervisor, accompanying the relocation of five days a week, transporting heavy objects, tools, etc.” (hereinafter “instant injury”).

[The Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation(hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Veterans' Compensation").

) A person eligible for veteran’s compensation shall be deemed to have filed for registration together in accordance with Article 4(2).

The defendant suffered urgency as a direct cause of the performance of duties or education and training directly related to the national defense security or the protection of the people's lives and property.

(2) On October 22, 2015, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement notified the Plaintiff of the determination that the Plaintiff is not eligible for a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State and a person eligible for veteran’s compensation, according to the result of deliberation by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement that the performance of duties or education and training that are not directly related to national security or the protection of the people’s lives

(hereinafter the above two dispositions are combined and thus referred to as "each of the dispositions of this case"). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff works for C from December 2005 to December 2008 as "the head of light equipment maintenance team and the officer in charge of Class 7 equipment." The plaintiff's assertion is a development machine and cooking of each unit.