6.26전몰군경유족,유자녀 수당 지급
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial.
Article 16-3 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter “the Act”) and Article 27-3 [Attachment 5-5] subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27753, Dec. 30, 2016; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc.”) receive allowances for the children of soldiers and policemen killed in action (hereinafter “instant allowances”) from July 2016 to 6/25.
B. On October 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Defendant to the effect that “A person who is a bereaved family member’s bereaved family member’s death year is 197 and 1999 shall not be treated differently, and thus, Article 27-3 [Attachment 5-5] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, which prescribes different amounts of the instant allowances, should not be applied separately.” The Plaintiff also filed a civil petition with the purport that “A person who is a bereaved family member’s death year shall be paid the same amount of allowances
C. On October 27, 2016, the Defendant provided that Article 16-3(2) of the Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree to pay allowances, and accordingly, Article 27-3 [Attachment 5-5] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State shall be differentiated from the amount of allowances paid. In each case, the Defendant responded to the purport that the Plaintiff’s above application is rejected on the ground that there is
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Seoul Administrative Court 2016Guhap8678, and the said court rendered a judgment of the first instance that dismissed the said claim on June 2, 2017.
E. On October 20, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the first instance, as this Court No. 2017Nu57150, but this court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal.
F. The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the judgment subject to a retrial.