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

A. On April 20, 1951, the Plaintiff entered the Air Force, and was discharged on September 1, 1954 by subrogation on August 31, 1965. After discharge, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment of compensation, etc. with the Defendant on October 2, 2007, pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Act on the Compensation for Persons who performed Special Military Operations (hereinafter “Act”) by asserting that: (a) the Plaintiff was discharged on September 1, 1954; (b) the Plaintiff was employed as D under the order of the Air Force B commander C, and (c) the Plaintiff performed a special duty, such as infiltration and kidnapping of force force force personnel at the horse.

B. On June 7, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application for payment of compensation, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff served in the military unit falling under Articles 2 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act even if the Plaintiff’s materials were transferred to the Republic of Korea with respect to the Plaintiff’s application and the details of the investigation on the person, guarantor, and witness were integrated.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an application for reexamination to the Defendant, but was dismissed on September 12, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A, Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1, 2, and 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had been discharged from active service and had obtained approval of a special co-operation plan from the C Order of the Air Force E commander from September 1965 to October 10 of the same year, and performed the special duties, such as infiltration to collect information on the horse at the end of the Yellow Sea, kidnapping such as personnel for North leader, etc., and saving fishermen involved, etc.

There is no evidence to prove the above activities of the plaintiff because the duties performed by the plaintiff were conducted in secret and there is almost no person who knows them, and all relevant documents were destroyed by C's instructions.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

(c) The compensation pursuant to the decision 1 shall be paid by the State for the special sacrifice related to the special military mission.