1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s person eligible for veteran’s compensation against the Plaintiff on January 19, 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 30, 1980, the Plaintiff was appointed as a police official and retired from office on August 31, 2014.

B. Around 17:00 on December 17, 1998, the Plaintiff was a traffic accident witness at the Bupyeong Police Station and the traffic accident investigation department, and on December 15, 1998, the Plaintiff was faced with an accident where he fells over the boundary fence of adult apartments and large apartments located in the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Bupyeong-gu (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. The Plaintiff sent back to the hospital and was diagnosed as “the post-explosion escape certificate accompanied by the c3-4, 4-5, 5-6, 6-7, 34-7, and the post-explosionosis, the dysium, C5-6 slope, and cerebral celebsium (hereinafter “the instant difference”). The Plaintiff received a diagnosis of “the instant difference” from the Public Official Pension Management Corporation for about two years, and received an approval for medical care from the public official.

On September 2, 2014, the Plaintiff issued an application for registration of the instant wounds to the Defendant on September 2, 2014, the date of retirement. However, on January 19, 2015, following the deliberation and resolution of the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement, the Defendant rendered a decision against the Plaintiff on January 19, 2015 that “The instant wounds occurred due to the Plaintiff’s gross negligence,” on the ground that the number of signboards escape certificates and the number of post-sacrifications are sediative diseases,” and Article 4(1)6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the Act on the Honorable Services to the State”) does not constitute the requirements for military personnel and police officers as defined in Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Support

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence of 3 to 22, Eul evidence of 1 to 4 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that he was present at the police station that received a statement from an witness of a traffic accident but refused to attend the police station, and the witness was present at the vice versa.