1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s person eligible for veteran’s compensation against the Plaintiff on October 27, 2014.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. After being appointed as Second Lieutenant on August 1, 2005, the Plaintiff served for promotion to First Lieutenant on August 1, 2006 and Captain on December 1, 2007, respectively, and retired from mental and physical disorder on April 30, 201.

B. On April 14, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State with respect to the Defendant, alleging that the mental fission occurred due to verbal abuse by a superior in the military service, collective bullying by executives, heavy duties, mental pressure following the dismissal of assignment, etc. (hereinafter “instant wounds”).

C. On October 27, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision that the instant wound does not fall under Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “the Act on the Persons, etc.”) and Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter “the Act on the Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State”), on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize that the instant wound occurred and aggravated in connection with the performance of military duties (hereinafter “instant disposition”) with the Plaintiff following the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans and Veterans Entitlement (hereinafter “the Act on the Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State”). D.

On December 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the appeal of each of the instant dispositions, but was dismissed on June 23, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, 8, 43, 50, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was under the influence of the quality and verbal abuse of the superior officer, such as the chief of the operations division, excessive duties, grouping of executives, dismissal of assigned position, etc. while serving as the 12 joint and several B commander around June 26, 2008. The difference in this case is due to the above stress.