The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 20, 2009, the Plaintiff entered the Army, and was discharged from the Republic of Korea on February 20, 201.

B. On September 20, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that “Around November 8, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) operated an corrosion vehicle and transferred corrosion; and (b) sustained injury to Heluri (hereinafter “the instant accident”); and (c) applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the basis of “No. 3-4 Hau, No. 4-5 Hau, and No. 5 1,00 (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

C. On March 6, 2020, the Defendant: (a) was a soldier, police officer, and police officer under the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation (hereinafter “the Veterans Compensation Act”); (b) however, the escape from the 3-4 external disc expansion, No. 5-100, the escape from the 1000 square meters was not determined as the above wounds caused by the performance of duties or education and training during military service, and that they do not fall under the requirements for military officers and police officers; (c) the escape from the 5-1,000 square meters and the 3-4 external disc expansion from the 5-1,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant wound”); and (d) the decision not to approve the requirements for military persons and police officers of the instant wound was made as the grounds for the above wounds were not determined rapidly aggravated at a speed above the outbreak or the natural transitional speed; and (e) the decision not to approve the requirements for military persons and police officers of the instant wound.

A. [The facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4-1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 4-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion repeated work from March 2010 to November 2011, 2010, 3 days a week from around 8 months from the date of the instant accident, which is the date of the instant accident. As a result, the Plaintiff continued to have a pain after the instant accident, and was hospitalized in the instant case after receiving a diagnosis of the instant difference and the instant difference.

Therefore, the difference in this case is due to the accident of this case, or the plaintiff's repetitive work, or the recognition of this case No. 4-5.