1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On September 2, 1965, the Plaintiff entered the Army and served in Vietnam for the period from November 9, 1966 to October 20, 1967. On April 7, 1967, the Plaintiff was discharged from military service on April 6, 1968.

On June 3, 200, the Plaintiff rendered an application for registration to the Defendant on the ground of the above lutional injury, and received from the Defendant for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State, the Plaintiff was recognized as a soldier or policeman wounded in action.

After that time, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for multiple diseases, such as spine chronism, half-month flusium on the left-hand chain, etc., by recognizing such diseases as relevant to the requirements for soldier or policeman wounded in action, but received all non-applicable decisions from the Defendant.

On April 22, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration with respect to “the instant difference” with respect to the Defendant, which is referred to as “the person who rendered distinguished services to the State,” by combining the following: the so-called “the so-called “the so-called “instant difference” and “the so-called “the so-called “the so-called “instant difference”).

On April 8, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition that did not recognize the injury as the requirement for soldier or policeman wounded in action (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the injury in this case was not verified and there was no objective data that caused the injury during the performance of duty, on the ground that there was no objective data that the injury in this case occurred during the performance of duty (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 7, and the purport of the entire argument as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, the plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff suffered a big injury on spine and knee in the course of the Vietnam War operations. Accordingly, the plaintiff was under continuous medical treatment, such as operation of spine colonism between 4-5.

In addition, it is possible to receive a chronic pain due to the left-hand knee credit and a disability of class 5.