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

A. The deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) is a soldier or policeman killed in action in the Korean War on March 12, 1952, who participated in the Korean War and was killed in the Korean War on March 12, 1952, and the Plaintiff is a woman of two women of the deceased.

B. On August 30, 1961, the Plaintiff registered as the bereaved family members of a soldier or policeman killed in action under the former Military Security Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 758 of Jan. 11, 1961, and repealed by Act No. 3742 of Aug. 2, 1984), and received benefits such as the pension and allowances, etc., and succeeded to C who has the right to receive the pension, etc. upon the arrival of the majority on July 29, 1967, and thereafter C reached the majority on July 20, 1970, and became the subject of the original family and became the subject of the original family.

C. After that amendment, the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the Act”) was amended by Act No. 6339 on December 30, 200, a newly established provision was that one person having priority in the payment of pension under Article 16-3(1) of the said Act should be paid allowances for children of soldiers and policemen who died in the Korean War. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was determined as a bereaved family member of a person of distinguished services to the State on June 3, 2013 by filing an application for the registration of bereaved family with the head of the Changwon Military Branch Office for the registration of a person of distinguished services to the State on June 24, 2013, and was paid allowances for children of soldiers and policemen who died in the Korean War from June 2013 to the date of the application for registration.

The provisions concerning the Military Aid Compensation Act and the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State concerning the bereaved family members of soldiers and policemen killed in action shall be as shown in attached Form.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff alleged unjust enrichment due to the violation of the duty to notify, was newly established by the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State pursuant to the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, which was enforced on December 30, 200 and enforced on July 1, 2001, thereby allowing the Plaintiff to receive child allowances from the date of its enforcement, and thus, the Defendant shall notify the Plaintiff indicated on the record card of persons of distinguished service to the State and pay child allowances.