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 April 3, 1990, the Plaintiff entered the Army and discharged from active service on August 27, 1992. On December 2017, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that he/she applied for the Mental Divided Certificate (hereinafter “instant wounds”).
B. However, on June 22, 2018, the Defendant rendered a non-specific decision on the requirements of a person of distinguished service to the State and a non-specific decision on the requirements for a person eligible for veteran’s compensation (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize that the instant wounds were caused by the military performance or education and training directly related to the national defense, etc., or that there was a proximate causal relation with the military performance or education and training.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 3 and 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had a good health condition before entering the Plaintiff, but did not have any particular mental illness, was under serious stress due to malmal and cruel acts, etc. from military life, and thus, the instant wound was caused or aggravated beyond natural progress.
Therefore, each of the instant dispositions taken on different premise is unlawful even though the Plaintiff constitutes a person who rendered distinguished services to the State or a person eligible for veteran’s compensation.
B. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff, B and South Korea, was enrolled in the third grade of C and was enrolled in the military university.
B) On February 13, 1990, the Plaintiff’s father was a university professor and mother, and the Plaintiff was a fluorite. 2) After entering the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff entered the Plaintiff’s living environment and the instant injury diagnosis, etc., and entered the Plaintiff on April 3, 1990 after receiving a normal determination at the time of physical examination, and there was no particular problem in the draft physical examination, and training was conducted.