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

A. On February 1, 2005, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment of compensation (hereinafter “instant application”) with the Defendant under the Act on the Compensation for Persons who performed Special Military Missions (hereinafter “Compensation Act”) on the ground that “at the time of working in the ○○○○○ District from July 1, 1968 to March 1969, the Plaintiff was engaged in education, training, and public works to perform special duties in the two-gu area.”

B. On November 27, 2007, the Defendant rendered a decision to pay KRW 137,476,680 to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff is recognized as a person who performed a special military mission under Article 2(1) of the Compensation Act and Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act” (hereinafter “the instant decision on compensation”). The Plaintiff consented to the instant decision on compensation and received the said compensation at that time.

C. On June 29, 2010, the Defendant rendered a decision to compensate the Plaintiff on the basis of data inside the country, on June 29, 2010, to recover the full amount of compensation according to the instant decision of compensation pursuant to Article 18(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Compensation Act, on the ground that “The Plaintiff was identified as the support personnel who did not perform his/her duties, and as a result of a special investigation on the Plaintiff, personal friendship, and witness, etc. conducted to verify data and to verify facts pursuant to Article 18(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Compensation Act, and Article 4(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Compensation Act and Article 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1 to 3, Gap evidence 4-1 and 4-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) According to Article 17-2 of the Compensation Act, a judicial compromise is deemed to have been formed when the applicant consenteds to the decision on the payment of compensation, etc. In accordance with the above provisions, since the decision on the compensation of this case to which the Plaintiff consented has res judicata the same as the final and conclusive judgment, the disposition of this case against

2) The instant disposition was revoked ex officio, and for the revocation to justify it, it is limited to cases where the necessity of public interest due to revocation is greater than that of the party’s trust interest infringement, etc. In this case, it is difficult to recognize the necessity of public interest superior to the Plaintiff’s expectation interest and legal stability, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

3) The instant compensation decision was made by the process report, which is a reliable material inside the military unit, and according to the above process report, the Plaintiff performed the special duty of △△△△△ Group (hereinafter referred to as △△△△ Group) for the purpose of observing △△△ Group north of the Military Demarcation Line, and collecting information on the north of the Military Demarcation Line, and the Defendant followed the previous compensation decision and issued the instant disposition based on the “the result of the special external investigation into the witness, etc.,” which is less reliable. This is unlawful since there is no ground for the disposition.

4) The Plaintiff, separate from △△ Design, performed the “actal protocol” at the △△△ Hospital from September 17, 1968 to September 27, 196, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On October 11, 1965, while having been admitted to active duty service and performed military service, the Plaintiff was assigned to Staff Staffhouse on October 1, 1967, and was on duty in the shiphouse of the Incheon Metropolitan Area, and had been commissioned training in the Navy UDT on June 1, 1968. From July 1968 to March 1968, the Plaintiff was on duty as security staff at the △△△△ branch in the two-gu area.

2) On February 1, 2005, at the time of the post office of △△△△△, the Plaintiff filed the instant application with the Plaintiff, providing education, training, and writing activities for the performance of special duties in both regions of both regions.

3) In accordance with the △△△ Report on the Action Process Report on △△△ Incorporated which was kept by the Defendant on November 27, 2007 (hereinafter “instant report”), the Defendant confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff was included among the members of △△△ Incorporated’s activity and issued the instant compensation decision.

4) According to the instant report, the instant protocol consists of the following:

○ △△△ (Ching Action : Non-party 1 (Subrogation), non-party 2 (Subrogation by subrogation), non-party 3 (Linsium), non-party 4 (Japanese Disease), non-party 5 (Japanese Disease), non-party 6 (Pins Disease), and non-party 7 (Pins Disease) who has promoted.

○ ▷▷▷(지원조) : 조장 소외 8(대위), 조원 소외 9(중사), 소외 10(하사), 원고(하사), 소외 11(일병), 소외 12(일병), 소외 13(일병)

5) According to the instant report, the following points are the developments leading up to △△△ Cooperative activities.

A) On October 1, 1968, Non-Party 09:00, and non-party 1 and non-party 6, commencement of weekly invasions, and conduct observations on the target areas from (branch No. 1 omitted) to 09:50 to 10:40 on October 1, 1968. Reinception shall be commenced under the subparagraph of the search guard.

B) On October 1, 1968, 11:05 on October 1, 1968 (branch number 2 omitted) the number of persons engaged in search and seizure.

C) On October 1, 1968, 14:00 military Demarcation Line (hereinafter “branch number 3 omitted) located outside the Military Demarcation Line of 14:00 on October 1, 1968, while concealing the use of a forest zone with two-class unit of infiltration after the observation and re-implementation of the target area in the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△△△△ position, and observation of the signs of its activities after having been installed therein.

D) On October 1, 1968, 19:20 the commencement of cambling by spores, and 19:40 points north of the Military Demarcation Line (branch No. 4 omitted), which are 300 meters north of the Military Demarcation Line (hereinafter “branch No. 4”) are successful and a sericultural welfare program is organized after the completion of the program.

E) On October 2, 1968, as a result of the observation of △△△△△ branch (branch number 5 omitted) in the day on October 2, 1968, the appearance of the existing facilities has been permitted to be closed, but a trace of the surrounding area has been discovered.

F) On October 2, 1968, 19:0 the commencement of crupted operations on October 2, 1968, and 21:35 (Spot Number 6 omitted) branches on the same day (hereinafter “ Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog

사) 1968. 10. 3. 05:30 철수개시, 군사분계선 상의 ▷▷▷지원조와 접촉, 5분간 휴식 후 지원조 및 보병부대 잠복조 인원의 엄호 하에 무사히 철수함.

6) As a result of re-verification of the instant report, the Defendant, on June 29, 2010, issued the instant disposition on the ground that, in light of Nonparty 1, 10, 11, etc.’s witness statement, the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have participated in △△ Cooperative’s work, based on the fact that the Plaintiff was included in the support group for which he did not perform his special duties directly.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2-5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

The purport of Article 17-2 of the Compensation Act, which considers a judicial compromise at the time of consent to the decision on the payment of compensation, is that a person entitled to compensation or the State shall not dispute the existence of a claim or make an additional claim or a claim for return (the position of the State) in civil proceedings against a civil claim, which is a compensation claim. It cannot be viewed that the above provision prohibits the defendant from taking a disposition to recover compensation as an ex officio cancellation of the decision on the basis of Article 18 of the Compensation Act in the position of an administrative agency. According to Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the Compensation Act, if the defendant intends to receive compensation, it is essential to consent to the decision on the payment of compensation. If interpreted as the plaintiff's assertion, the interpretation of Article 18 of the Compensation Act results in a result that no disposition to recover compensation can be taken on any ground, and Article 17-2 of the Compensation Act is newly established on September 22, 2006, and the amendment of the Compensation Act remains effective until 18, 2015.

2) Determination on the second argument

Article 18(1) of the Compensation Act provides that “If a person receives compensation, etc. under the Compensation Act, even if the person received compensation, etc. by fraud or other improper means (Article 18(1)1), and where the compensation, etc. was erroneously paid (Article 17-2), the compensation, etc. shall be recovered in whole or in part.” This provision provides that the person who performed a special sacrifice in relation to a special military mission and his/her bereaved family members may recover all or part of the compensation, by correcting the payment by improper means, etc. It appears that the person who performed the special military mission and his/her bereaved family members who made a special sacrifice in connection with the special military mission can be properly and appropriately compensated. The defendant conducted a reinvestigation through the plaintiff and the reference, etc. after the initial decision on the compensation of this case, it appears that the disposition of this case was conducted by the plaintiff pursuant to Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Compensation Act, not by the person who performed the special military mission but by the plaintiff and the reference. Even if the plaintiff consented to the compensation decision, it can be seen as necessary for the purpose and purport of Article 18(1) of the Compensation Act.

3) Judgment on the third argument

A) Comprehensively taking account of the language, purport, and content of Article 1, Article 2(1)1 and 2(2) of the Compensation Act, and Articles 2 through 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Compensation Act, “special duties” subject to the Compensation Act refers to activities such as intelligence and information collection, etc. that involve a high risk of exceeding ordinary activities, such as intelligence and information collection, etc. In other words, in the case of land, the activities such as intelligence and information collection, etc. that are carried out by the ASEAN, such as the Military Demarcation Line and the Northern Limit Line in the case of the sea, by infiltrating into an area where the military protection and control by the ASEAN is not guaranteed.

B) According to Article 18(1) of the Compensation Act, in cases where a person who received compensation, etc. has received compensation, etc. by fraud or other improper means (Article 18(1)1), or where compensation, etc. has been paid by fault or other wrongful means (Article 18(2)2), the State shall recover all or part of compensation, etc. In an appeal suit seeking revocation of an administrative disposition, the Defendant, who is a disposition agency claiming the pertinent disposition, bears the burden of proving the legitimacy of the pertinent disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu124, Jul. 24, 1984). Thus, the fact that the person who received compensation, etc. received compensation, by fraud or other improper means, or that the compensation, etc. was paid by mistake

On the other hand, an official document may not be rejected without permission, unless there are special circumstances, such as the presumption of authenticity and its probative value as to the content of the statement are contrary to the truth (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da78768, Feb. 22, 2002). The instant report constitutes an official document prepared by the Information Headquarters, and thus it constitutes a fact contrary to the content of the statement or, in light of the grounds and circumstances on which the document was prepared, unless there is any other evidence to prove the credibility of the content of the statement, the content of the statement should not be the same as that of the actual special duty, and its probative value shall not be rejected without

In this case, the evidence submitted by the defendant or the statement of some related persons does not coincide with the report of this case as alleged by the defendant is insufficient to recognize that the report of this case was falsely prepared, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

C) However, even if the probative value of the instant report is recognized, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the instant report, the facts acknowledged as such, and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff carried out special duties, such as intelligence and information collection, etc., that the Plaintiff went into an area where the Military Demarcation Line was not guaranteed, such as going beyond the Military Demarcation Line from October 1, 1968 to October 3, 1968, and carried out such special duties as military intelligence and information collection, etc., and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

① According to the instant report, the Plaintiff is affiliated with a support aid rather than a behavior aid, and the main contents of the process of the instant report are as follows: (a) at the point (branch number 1 omitted) located outside the Military Demarcation Line of this case, which is six (a week 1) and (b) at the point (branch number 2 omitted) located outside the Military Demarcation Line; (c) at the point outside the Military Demarcation Line of this case; (d) at the point outside the Military Demarcation Line, which is an area north the Military Demarcation Line; (d) at the point outside the Military Demarcation Line, and (e) at the point outside the Military Demarcation Line, and (e) at the point outside the Military Demarcation Line; and (e) at the point near the Military Demarcation Line of this case, the Plaintiff was engaged in observation activities on the △△△ branch; and (e) at the point near the Military Demarcation Line of this case, and (e) at the point near the Military Demarcation Line of this case, was not entirely mentioned in the instant report.

② The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that whether the Military Demarcation Line goes beyond the Military Demarcation Line is a formal boundary line that passes through the Military Demarcation Line (DM), but it is not a substantial boundary line. However, since the closure of 1953, it seems possible to distinguish the Military Demarcation Line (MDL) by setting up signboards, etc. indicating the Military Demarcation Line as well as by the Military Demarcation Line. The Military Demarcation Line is established between the Southern Demarcation Line and the Military Demarcation Line. In light of the fact that the report of this case states that the Military Demarcation Line was carried out by infiltrating and cutting off the Military Demarcation Line and the Military Demarcation Line, it appears that the Military Demarcation Line and the Military Demarcation Line are guaranteed the protection and control of the Military Demarcation Line in light of whether the Military Demarcation Line and the Military Demarcation Line were carried out within the Military Demarcation Line, and thus, it appears that the Plaintiff’s interpretation and control of the Military Demarcation Line cannot be seen as not having been permitted by the Plaintiff’s special military operations, such as military operations.

③ According to the statement of the Plaintiff (Evidence 6), the Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that “the Plaintiff 1 stuffed with the mission of developing the route of infiltration, such as setting up the military branch line in A Gun area around the Military Demarcation Line, but does not have any memory operated for 2-day and 3-day hours.” The same shall apply to the case where the Plaintiff actually went beyond the Military Demarcation Line,” and it cannot be deemed that there is consistency in the Plaintiff’s statement as to whether the Plaintiff was engaged in a public work since it was actually going beyond the Military Demarcation Line, and it is difficult for the Plaintiff to make a statement to the effect that “from September 7, 1968 to October 10, 1968, the time when the Plaintiff goes through the Military Demarcation Line and goes through the Military branch line in A Gun area around the Military Demarcation Line,” as to a specific reason, in light of the above statement as to whether the Plaintiff did not want credibility or credibility of the Plaintiff’s activities.”

4) Judgment on the fourth argument

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit, in light of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 17, 2, and 21 of evidence Nos. 17 and 20, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings:

가) 원고는 1968. 9. 17.부터 같은 달 19.까지, 1968. 9. 25.부터 같은 달 27.까지 2회에 걸쳐 ‘▷▷▷공작’에 공작조원으로 참여한 사실은 인정되나, 원고 등이 공작활동을 한 지점의 좌표를 좌표 값 변경방법에 따라 환산하여 보면 모두 군사분계선 남방지역임을 알 수 있으므로, 위와 같은 사정만으로 원고가 아군에 의한 군사상 보호 및 통제가 보장되지 않는 지역에서 특별한 위험과 희생이 수반되는 공작활동을 수행하였다고 보기는 어렵다.

나) 이 사건 보상결정 및 이 사건 처분의 근거가 된 것은 이 사건 보고서에 기재된 1968. 10. 1.부터 같은 달 3.까지의 ◇◇공작이므로, 원고가 ◇◇공작과는 별도로 1968. 9. 17.부터 같은 달 27.까지 △△△대에서 ‘행동조’로서 ‘◇◇◇공작(위 ▷▷▷공작과 같은 것으로 보인다)’을 수행하였다는 점에 대하여는 이를 주장하는 원고에게 그 증명책임이 있다고 할 것인데, 원고가 제출한 증거들만으로는 원고가 ◇◇공작과는 별도로 ‘행동조’로서 ‘◇◇◇공작’을 수행하였음을 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

5) Sub-committee

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition is unlawful is without merit, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of Related Acts]

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The instant report is expressed as “non-party 1 and six other,” and it appears that the number of acting assistants is six. In light of that the number of acting assistants is six, it appears that the instant report refers to six acting assistants.