1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered the Army on August 15, 1973 and was discharged from military service on April 30, 2008.

B. On December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant injury”). However, on August 27, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision on whether he/she constitutes the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the decision on the person eligible for veteran’s compensation (Seoul District Court 2015Gudan1160) and won the decision on December 9, 2016, and the Defendant’s appeal was dismissed and finalized at the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2016Nu7416). Accordingly, on May 2, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on the recognition of the requirements for persons eligible for veteran’s compensation to the Plaintiff.

C. On July 25, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of a person of distinguished service to the Defendant on the ground that the instant wounds constituted the requirements for the honorable treatment and support of persons, etc. of distinguished service to the State (hereinafter “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State”) rather than a person of distinguished service to the State, but the Defendant, on February 2, 2018, cannot be deemed to have been wounded in the course of performing duties or education and training directly related to the national defense, security, etc. of the country where the instant wounds occurred, and thus, does not constitute the requirements for the disposition of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 18, Eul evidence No. 1 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On March 28, 2003, when the Plaintiff had been working at BCOM, conducted the B Commander C on March 15, 2003, and inspected the actual condition of support for the maintenance of coastal monitoring equipment at D seconds, the Plaintiff was faced with the knee knee kne, thereby receiving a diagnosis of the “friendly knee snee snee snee snee sne,” and the Plaintiff was working at E facility as the direction of the head of E facility on September 2, 2004.