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 April 10, 1985, the Plaintiff, who entered the Gun and was discharged from the military on August 31, 2003, was injured by a traffic accident, which occurred on May 6, 1993, at the crosswalk at the entrance of the headquarters headquarters of the 55th Army located in the Gyeonggi-do, Gandong-gun, Gyeonggi-do, Gandong-do (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. In around 2011, the Plaintiff applied for distinguished service to the State, and the applicant’s injury was recognized as different in the course of performing official duties from “serious cerebral Sponcecece,” “hyposis (to the right side of the upper left side of the upper and the upper right side of the upper left side),” “hyposis and the upper right side of the upper right,” “hyposis and the upper right side of the upper right side of the upper right,” and “pyposis of the engine branch (after the engine branch),” and “hypump in the upper right side of the upper right,” and accordingly, registered as a person of distinguished service to the State after being judged at Grade 6(2) of the disability rating in a physical examination.

C. On May 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for an additional verification of the occurrence of the “contribute of both visual vision” and “mental disease” (hereinafter “intribute of additional application”) due to the instant accident.

On October 23, 2013, the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement did not deem that the causal link with the performance of military duties was created or aggravated. Accordingly, it did not constitute the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation pursuant to the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “Act”) and the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “the Act on Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation”), which the Plaintiff applied for additional recognition, as the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation, did not recognize the difference as the requirements for soldier’s injury and the requirements for soldier’s or policeman’s compensation. The Defendant made a resolution