1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 5, 1997, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service as an auxiliary police officer upon entering the Army, and was discharged from military service on October 4, 199.

B. On May 13, 2004, the Plaintiff asserted that the “mental fission certificate” (hereinafter “the instant difference”) occurred due to the head and telegraph from an appointed soldier during the military service, and filed an application for registration with the Defendant for distinguished service to the State.

However, on August 24, 2004, the Board of Patriots and Veterans deliberated and decided that it does not constitute a soldier or policeman, as provided by Article 2(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, on the ground that it is difficult to recognize proximate causal relation between the instant wound and the military performance of official duties. Accordingly, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the person of distinguished service to the Plaintiff around that time.

C. On July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted the same reasons and applied for re-registration to the Defendant, but the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement deliberated and decided on December 16, 2014 that the person was not a soldier or policeman on duty or a soldier or policeman on the same grounds as the previous deliberation and resolution. Accordingly, on January 9, 2015, the Defendant issued a notification to the Plaintiff on the ground that the person was not eligible for distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal on March 3, 2015, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on June 16, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, 6, 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion was conducted while serving in the military and damaged the head of the instant case from an appointed soldier B, etc., there was a proximate causal relation between the instant wounds and the military performance.