1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 11, 1988, the Plaintiff entered the Army and discharged the Plaintiff from military service on June 30, 1989.

B. On January 11, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-registration of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State, inasmuch as there was a frequent opportune (hereinafter “instant wounds”) caused by stress and frequent opportune with the Defendant.

C. On June 21, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision on the non-conformity of the requirements for persons who rendered distinguished services to the State and persons eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize that the instant wounds were caused by the performance of military duties or education and training, or that they were caused by the performance of military duties or education and training, and that they were rapidly aggravated above the natural progress level

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered the Gun in a healthy state. While having been under stress due to a sudden change of the military living environment, the appointed soldiers were misled as her resistance, and continued to rescue the Plaintiff, etc., and the instant injury was caused due to stress.

Therefore, the difference in this case has a proximate causal relation with military duty or education and training.

Therefore, it constitutes the requirements for persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State, and meet the requirements for persons eligible for veteran's compensation.

B. The following facts are acknowledged according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap's 3, 4, Eul's 4, and Eul's 4 and 5.

1. On January 11, 198, the plaintiff was enrolled in the Gun and was trained by the National Armed Forces Education Team, and was treated as a mental problem on January 22, 198, because it was seriously affected by a change in appraisal and it became well-being with the members of the military unit. On February 27, 1988, the plaintiff was treated as a mental problem.