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

A. 1) The Plaintiff was the spouse of the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) and was killed on May 13, 1953 due to the death of the deceased on August 4, 1983 due to a testamentary gift.

On June 23, 2003, the Defendant filed an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State to the Defendant. On March 29, 2004, the Defendant: (a) received an application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State on the ground that it is medically difficult to recognize that the deceased died from such wounds despite the fact that the deceased died before the application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State was killed in action; (b) the deceased was not a soldier or policeman killed in action under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State; (c) upon objection to the above disposition, the Plaintiff filed a revocation suit under Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2004Guhap31811; and (d) on May 18, 2005, this Court did not have any evidence to recognize that the deceased died from such wounds before the application for registration of a person who has rendered distinguished service to the State, but it cannot be said that the Defendant rendered

The judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim was finalized on April 1, 2006 as the Defendant’s appeal against the above judgment was dismissed. Accordingly, on April 28, 2006, the Defendant rendered a disposition that the deceased constituted a soldier or policeman killed or wounded in action. 2) On July 27, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the judgment as Seoul Administrative Court’s rating No. 2006Guhap46190, as the deceased’s disability rating was determined by class No. 6(2)30, and this court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim to the effect that the disability rating of the deceased constituted class No. 529 on March 28, 2007, and the Defendant’s appeal and appeal against the above judgment were filed.